GOVERNING 


iaMHDi 

tffk 


rpp 

SCE 


METHODISM 


Csity  of  California 
ithern  Regional 
ibnry  Facility 


A  HISTORY 

OF  THE 

ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT 

OF  THE 


IN  METHODISM, 

AND   ESPECIALLY  OF  THE 

GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  THE  METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 


RKV.  THOMAS  B.  NEELY,  D.D.,  Ph.D.,  LLD., 


AUTHOR  OF 


1  The  Involution  of  Episcopacy  and  Organic  Methodism  ;"  "  Parliament" 

ary  Practice;"  "Young  Workers  in  the  Church;" 

"The  Church  Lyceum,"  Etc. 


SEVENTH  EDITION. 


CINCINNATI:    JENNINGS  &  PYE. 
NI'AY    YORK:     EATON    &    MAINS. 


Copyright 

BY  CRANSTON  &  STOWB. 
1898. 


TO 

Demorg  nf  ing 

MR.  THOMAS  NEELY, 

from  whom  I  first  learned  the  principles  of 
•    METHODIST  POLITY, 

whose  upright  character  and  useful   life  as  a  citizen 
and  as  an  official  in  the  Church 

caused  him,  when  living, 

to  be  highly  respected,  and  since  his  death  to  be 
lovingly  remembered  by  all  who  knew  him, 

THIS  BOOK  IS 


PREFACE. 

• 

reason  for  many  peculiarities  in  ecclesiastical 
*~  economy  must  be  sought  in  the  circumstances 
connected  with  their  crystallization  and  incorporation. 
A  knowledge  of  their  history  is  absolutely  necessary 
if  we  would  understand  their  intention ;  for,  in  many 
instances,  an  unhistorical  interpretation  of  the  lan- 
guage of  a  law  will  give  it  a  false  meaning. 

The  time  has  arrived  for  a  re-study  of  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  the  ecclesiastical  polity  of 
Methodism.  The  early  generations  have  passed 
away;  and  the  records  of  facts  connected  with  the 
ecclesiastical  beginnings  are  scattered  in  many  books, 
manuscripts,  fugitive  productions,  and  fragmentary 
utterances.  These  should  be  collated,  and  logically 
arranged. 

In  a  former  book,  entitled  "The  Evolution  of 
Episcopacy  and  Organic  Methodism,"*  we  gave  a 
study  of  the  Methodist  Episcopate,  and  of  the  initi- 
ation and  development  of  organic  Methodism.  In 
the  present  work  we  trace  the  Conference  idea  from 
the  first  Conference,  held  by  the  Rev.  John  Wesley 

*  Published  by  Hunt  4  Eaton,  New  York,  1888. 


vi  PREFACE. 

in  1744,  down  to  the  Conferences  of  the  present 
time.  We  study  the  English  Conferences  down  to 
the  period  immediately  following  Mr.  Wesley's  death 
in  1791;  and  then,  starting  with  the  beginning  of 
American  Methodism,  we  show  the  growth  of  the  Con- 
ference idea  until  it  develops  into  the  delegated  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ; 
and,  finally,  point  out  the  various  changes  that  have 
been  made  in  the  constitution  of  the  General  Con- 
ference down  to  1888. 

The  General  Conference  of  to-day  is  an  evolution 
from  a  crude  beginning.  To  trace  its  development 
is  to  reveal  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  polity 
and  general  history  of  Methodism.  The  study  is  of 
vast  importance,  and  should  be  of  great  interest  to 
every  member,  as  well  as  every  minister. 

Trusting  that  this  contribution  to  the  study  of 
the  history  and  constitutional  law  of  the  Church  may 
be  of  service  in  the  solution  of  historical  and  consti- 
tutional questions,  this  book  is  now  submitted  to 

the  public. 

T.  B.  NEELY. 

PHILADELPHIA,  PA.,  March  23, 1892. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PAGE 
WESLEY'S  CONFERENCES 1 

CHAPTER  II. 

WESLEY'S  EARLY  PLANS  FOK  PERPETUATING  BRITISH  METH- 
ODISM, AND  ENDOWING  THE  CONFERENCE  WITH  POWER,  .    20 

CHAPTER  TIT. 

WESLEY'S  FINAL  PLAN  FOR  PERPETUATING  AND  EMPOWERING 
THE  CONFERENCE, 44 

CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  EARLY  AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  DOWN  TO  1777, ....    82 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE  AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  FROM  1778  TO  1781,  .....  127 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  CONFERENCE  IN  AMERICA  FROM  1782  TO  1784, 184 

CHAPTER  VII. 

M'i  SI.KY'S    PLAN    FOR   THE  REORGANIZATION  OF  AMERICAN 

METHODISM, -24 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OF  1784 236 

VII 


viii  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

CAGE. 

THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789, 267 

CHAPTER  X. 
THE  COUNCIL, 299 

CHAPTER  XL 
THE  QUADRENNIAL  GENERAL  CONFERENCE, 318 

CHAPTER  XII. 
THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFEUENCE, 338 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  NATURE  AND  POWER  OF  THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CON- 
FERENCE,     374 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

CHANGES  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  GENERAL  CONFER- 
ENCE FROM  1812  TO  1856, 389 

CHAPTER  XV.  . 

CHANGES  IN  THE  CHAPTER  ON  THE  GENERAL  CONFERFM-I: 
FROM  1856  TO  1868 413 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
CHANGES  IN  TUB  CONSTITUTION  FROM  1868  TO  1888, 421 


APPENDIX. 

CONDENSED  CHANGES  IN  SECTION  ON  GENERAL  CONFERKM  i: 
FROM  1792  TO  1888, 447 


THE  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE 

IN 

METHODISM. 


CHAPTER  I. 

WESLEY'S  CONFERENCES. 

T  ORD  MACAULAY  declared  that  John  Wesley's 
1— t  "  genius  for  government  was  not  inferior  to  that 
of  Richelieu,"  and  time  shows  the  statement  was  not 
too  strong. 

His  talent  for  organization  manifested  itself  at  an 
early  date.  His  executive  force  was  felt  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Holy  Club  at  Oxford'  University  and 
in  all  the  movements  of  the  Oxford  Methodists.  In 
his  early  ministry  in  Georgia  his  ability  to  govern  was 
rather  intense.  Some,  indeed,  might  term  it  excess- 
ive; but  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  at  that  period 
he  was  a  High-Churchman,  with  much  to  unlearn  as 
well  as  learn. 

He  was  prominent  in  the  formation  of  the  first 
Moravian  Society  founded  at  Fetter  Lane,  London, 
May  1,  1738. '  His  impulse  to  direct  manifested  itself 
the  same  year — 1738 — in  a  set  of  rules  which  he  drew 

i  Tyuimaii'B  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  I,  p.  282. 


2       GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

up  for  the  regulation  of  the  Moravian  Band  Soci- 
eties.1 The  natural  bent  of  the  Ilev.  John  Wesley 
toward  organization  appeared  in  a  very  marked  man- 
ner while  he  was  associated  with  the  Moravians.  OD 
Monday,  the  12th  of  November,  1739,  Mr.  Wesley 
left  London  to  return  to  Bristol.  In  the  evening  he 
reached  Wycombe,  where  there  was  a  little  society, 
and  where  he  preached.  He  writes: 

"Here  we  unexpectedly  found  Mr.  Robson  and  Gambold, 
with  whom,  after  much  prayer  and  consultation,  we  agreed: 
1.  To  meet  yearly  at  London,  if  God  permit,  on  the  eve  of  As- 
cension-day. 2.  To  fix  then  the  business  to  be  done  the  ensu- 
ing year — where,  when,  and  by  whom.  3.  To  meet  quarterly 
there,  as  many  as  can;  namely,  on  the  second  Tuesday  in 
July,  October,  and  J:i unary.  4.  To  send  a  monthly  account 
to  one  another  of  what  God  hath  done  in  each  of  our 
stations.  5.  To  inquire  whether  Mr.  Hall,  Sympson,  Rogers, 
Ingham,  Hutchins,  Kinchin,  Stonehouse,  Cennick,  Oxlee,  and 
Brown  will  join  us  herein.  6.  To  consider  whether  there"  be 
any  others  of  our  spiritual  friends  who  are  able  and  willing 
so  to  do." « 

This  was  the  first  foreshadowing  of  the  Confer- 
ence idea,  with  its  annual  sessions,  the  quarterly  meet- 
ing, and  the  monthly  review  of  the  work.  It  was  a 
bold  scheme  of  systematic  and  far-reaching  activity. 

As  Dr.  Whitehead,  in  his  "Life  of  John  Wesley," 
observes : 

"  Here  we  have  the  first  outlines  of  a  plan  to  unite  the 
ministers  together,  and  to  extend  their  labors  to  different 
parts  of  the  kingdom,  under  such  regulations  as  might  give 


i  Rules  of  Band  Societies,  4th  Ed.,  1744.  Luke  Tyennan,  Life  of 
John  Wesley,  Vol.  I,  p.  210. 

*  W  hitehead's  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  II.  p.  128.  Dublin  :  John  Joues. 
1806. 


WESLEY'S  CONFERENCES.  3 

them  a  mutual  dependence  on  one  another.  In  this  sketch 
no  one  assumes  an  authority  over  the  rest  of  his  brethren — 
all  appear  equal.  But  this  plan  was  never  put  into  execution. 
When  Mr.  Wesley  separated  from  the  Moravian  brethren, 
Mr.  Gambold  and  some  others  gradually  withdrew  themselves 
from  him."  l 

The  scheme,  in  this  particular  form,  was  never 
carried  out;  for  only  a  few  weeks  afterwards  he  with- 
drew from  the  Moravians  on  account  of  their  here- 
sies and  religious  extravagances.  Numbers  who  had 
belonged  to  these  societies  also  withdrew,  and  these, 
with  others,  repaired  to  Mr.  Wesley;  and  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  year  1739  he  formed  in  London  the 
first  Methodist  society.2 

Thus,  at  the  age  of  thirty-six,  he  was  thrust  out 
as  the  leader  of  an  independent  movement,  and  his 
status  was  changed.  Before  he  was  one  among  equals ; 
now  he  was  recognized  as  the  chief,  whose  will  was 
law.  Society  after  society  was  formed,  and  by  his 
genius  cemented  into  "  The  United  Societies." 

He  attracted  regular  clergymen  to  his  assistance, 
and  also  raised  up  a  lay  ministry.  In  a  few  years  his 
preachers  had  increased  to  such  numbers  that  Mr. 
Wesley  deemed  it  wise  to  invite  them  to  meet  him  in 
Conference,  and  his  first  "Yearly  Conference"  began 
on  the  25th  of  June.  1744,  From  that  time  until 
his  death,  on  the  2d  of  March,  1791,  he  held  "Con- 
ferences" annually,  making  forty-seven  in  all. 

The  most  of  the  ministers  who  met  Mr.  Wesley 
on  these  occasions  were  lay  preachers,  but  some  of 

i  Whitehead's  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  II,  pp.  126, 127,  Dublin  E.1 
•Tyerman,  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  I.  p.  282. 


4       GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

them  were  regularly  ordaiued  clergymen  of  the  Church 
of  England. 

No  one  had  any  inherent  right  to  attend  these 
Conferences,  as  they  were  composed,  not  of  all  the 
preachers,  but  only  of  those  Mr.  Wesley  "  invited  to 
confer"  with  him.  They  met  him,  not  by  natural  or 
acquired  right,  but  by  permission.  "Mr.  Wesley  at 
first  invited  all  the  assistants1  to  meet  him,  but  after- 
wards only  a  select  number;  and  he  gave  the  name 
Conference,  not  to  what  was  said,  but  to  the  persons 
assembled."2  On  March  3,  1785,  Mr.  Wesley  gave  a 
condensed  history  of  the  origin  and  development  of 
the  Conference  idea  in  these  words: 

"In  June,  1744,  I  desired  my  brother  and  a  few  clergy- 
men to  meet  me  in  London,  to  consider  how  we  should  pro- 
ceed to  save  our  own  souls  and  those  that  heard  us.  After 
some  time,  I  invited  the  lay  preachers  that  were  in  the  house 
to  meet  with  us.  We  conferred  together  for  several  days,  and 
were  much  comforted  and  strengthened  thereby. 

"The  next  year  I  not  only  invited  most  of  the  traveling 
preachers,  but  several  others  to  confer  with  me  in  Bristol. 
And  from  that  time  for  some  years,  though  I  invited  only  a 
part  of  the  traveling  preachers,  yet  I  permitted  any  that  de- 
sired it  to  be  present,  not  apprehending  any  ill  consequences 
therefrom. 

"Bat  two  ill  consequences  soon  appearedone  ,  that  the 
expense,  was  too  great  to  be  borne;  the  other,  that  many  of 
our  people  were  scattered  while  they  were  left  without  a  shep- 
herd. I  therefore  determined:  (1)  That,  for  the  time  to 
come,  none  should  be  present  but  those  whom  I  invited; 


'An  assistant  was  defined  In  the  Large  Minutes  of  1770  as  "  that 
preacher  In  eacli  circuit  who  Is  appointed  from  time  to  time  to  take 
.•hnrsje  of  the  societies  and  the  other  preachers  therein."  He  was  the 
-uporintendent,  so  to  speak,  of  the  preachers  and  preaching-places  on 
i  lie  circuit. 

•Peirce'a  Wesleyan  Polity,  8d  Ed.,  p.  449. 


WESLEY'S  CONFERENCES.  6 

and  (2)  that  I  would  only  invite  a  select  number  out  of  every 
circuit. 

"This  I  did  for  many  years,  and  all  that  time  the  term 
Conference  meant  not  so  much  the  conversation  we  had  to- 
gether as  the  persons  that  conferred;  namt-ly,  those  whom  I 
invited  to  confer  with  me  from  time  to  time.  So  that  all  this 
time  it  depended  on  ine  alone,  not  only  what  persons  should 
constitute  the  Conference,  but  whether  there  should  be  any 
Conference  at  all — this  lay  wholly  in  my  own. breast — neither 
the  preachers  nor  the  people  having  any  part  or  lot  in  the 
matter."1 

The  first  Conference  began  on  Monday,  June  25, 
1744,  and  continued  the  five  following  days,  and  was 
held  in  the  Foundry,  London.  It  consisted  of  the 
Rev.  John  Wesley;  Rev.  Charles  Wesley;  Rev.  John 
Hodges,  rector  of  Wenro ;  Rev.  Henry  Piers,  vicar  of 
Bexley;  Rev.  Samuel  Taylor,  vicar  of  Quinton;  and 
Rev.  John  Meriton,  of  the  Isle  of  Man ;  all  of  whom 
had  been  regularly  ordained  in  the  State  Church.2 
There  were  also  four  lay  preachers;  namely,  Thomas 
Richards,  Thomas  Maxfield,  John  Bennet,  and  John 
Downes.3 

The  day  before  the  Conference  commenced,  besides 
the  ordinary  preaching  services,  a  love-feast  was  held, 
at  which  six  ordained  ministers  were  present,  and  the 
sacrament  was  administered  to  the  whole  of  the 
London  society,  now  numbering  between  two  and 
three  thousand  members,  and  at  this  grand  sacra- 


i" Thoughts  upon  Some  Late  Occurrences,"  Wesley's  Works,  Vol. 
VII,  p.  309,  Anier.  Kd. 

*  Wesley's  Works— Con versatlon  I,  Vol.  V,  p.  191,  Amer.  Ed. 

•Smith's  History  of  Methodism,  Vol.  I,  p.  227;  William  Myles, 
Chronological  History  of  the  Methodists,  London,  1803,  3d  Ed., p.  22. 


6       GOVERNING  CONFERENCB  IN  METHODISM. 

mental  service,  five  regularly  ordained  clerygmen  of 
the  Established  Church  assisted.1 

The  Conference  was  opened  with  solemn  prayer, 
a  sermon  by  Charles  Wesley,  and  the  baptism  of  an 
adult,  who,  it  is  recorded,  there  and  then  found  peace 
with  God.2 

Not  pausing  to  dwell  upon  the  fact  that  even  at 
that  early  day  the  Methodists  received  the  sacraments 
outside  the  consecrated  Churches  of  the  Establish- 
ment, we  proceed  to  notice  the  Conference  itself. 
The  Rev.  William  Myles,  one  of  Wesley's  preachers, 
and  an  intimate  friend  of  the  founder  of  Methodism, 
tells  us:  "The  subjects  of  their  deliberations  were 
proposed  in  the  form  of  questions,  which  were  amply 
discussed,  and,  with  the  answers,  written  down  and 
afterward  printed  under  the  title  of  'Minutes  of 
Several  Conversations  Between  the  Reverend  Mr. 
Wesley  and  Others,'  but  now  commonly  called  'The 
Minutes  of  the  Conference/"3 

Mr.  Wesley  opened  the  proceedings  of  his  first 
Conference  with  the  following  introduction: 

"It  is  desired  that  all  things  be  considered  as  in  the  im- 
mediate presence  of  God ;  that  we  meet  with  a  single  eye, 
and  as  little  children,  who  have  everything  to  learn;  that 
every  point  which  is  proposed  may  be  examined  to  the  foun- 
dation ;  that  every  person  may  speak  freely  whatever  is  in 
his  heart;  and  that  every  question  which  may  arise  should 
be  thoroughly  debated  and  settled. 

"Q.    Need  we  be  fearful  of  doing  this?     What  are  we 


» Tyerman's  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  I,  p.  44S. 

•  Charles  Wesley's  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  3(57. 

*  William  Myle>«,  Chronological  History  of  the  People  called  Melh- 
odlst-s,  London,  3d  Ed.,  1803,  p.  23. 


WESLEY'S  CONFERENCES.  ? 

afraid  of?  Of  overturning  our  first  principles?  A.  If  they 
are  false,  the  sooner  they  are  overturned  the  better.  If  they 
are  true,  they  will  bear  the  strictest  examination.  Let  us  all 
pray  for  a  willingness  to  receive  light,  to  know  of  every  doc- 
irine  whether  it  be  of  God. 

"  Q.  How  may  the  time  of  the  Conference  be  made  more 
eminently  a  time  of  watching  unto  prayer.  A.  1.  While  we 
are  conversing,  let  us  have  an  especial  care  to  set  God  always 
before  us.  2.  In  the  intermediate  hours  let  us  visit  none  but 
the  sick,  and  spend  all  the  time  that  remains  in  retirement. 
3.  Let  us  therein  give  ourselves  to  prayer  for  one  another,  and 
for  a  blessing  upon  our  labor. 

"  Q.  How  far  does  each  of  us  agree  to  submit  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  majority?  A.  In  speculative  things,  each  can 
only  submit  so  far  as  his  judgment  shall  be  convinced.  In 
every  practical  point,  each  will  submit  so  far  as  he  can  without 
wounding  his  conscience. 

"  Q.  Can  a  Christian  submit  any  farther  than  this  to  any 
man,  or  number  of  men  upon  earth?  A.  It  is  undeniably 
certain  he  can  not;  either  to  Bishop,  Convocation,  or  General 
Council.  And  this  is  that  grand  principle  of  private  judgment 
on  which  all  the  reformers  proceeded,  '  Every  man  must  judge 
for  himself ;  because  every  man  must  give  an  account  of  him- 
self to  God.' " l 

The  principles  Wesley  thus  proposed  to  his  first 
Conference,  composed  of  six  regularly  ordained 
clergymen  and  four  traveling  lay  preachers,  were"  ex- 
tremely liberal  and  courageous.  They  were  foun- 
dation principles,  not  only  of  that  Conference,  but  of 
genuine  Methodism.  They  proclaimed  the  duty  of  a 
free,  fearless,  and  full  investigation,  which  would  lead 
to  the  truth,  even  if  error  must  be  eliminated  from 
former  views;  and  they  also  maintained  the  right  of 
private  judgment  even  against  combined  or  concen- 
trated authority,  while  the  suggestions  as  to  practical 

i  Myles,  Hist,  of  Metliodism,  1303,  3d  I'M.,  pp.  23,  24. 


8       GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

conduct  during  the  session  might  be  practiced  to  ad- 
vantage by  other  religious  bodies. 

With  Wesley's  recommendation,  "that  every 
question  proposed  may  be  fully  debated  and  '  bolted 
to  the  bran/  " l  the  Conference  proceeded  to  discuss 
three  points,  namely:  "1.  What  to  teach?  2.  How 
to  teach?  3.  What  to  do?  that  is,  how  to  regulate 
doctrine,  discipline,  and  practice."  2 

These  inquiries  covered  doctrine,  discipline,  and 
general  economy,  including  methods  of  teaching  and 
modes  of  executing  discipline.  Under  these  general 
heads  many  questions  were  propounded  and  answers 
formulated,  so  that  the  Minutes  of  the  Conferences 
appeared  in  the  form  of  question  and  answer.  In 
this  way,  in  the  course  of  years,  the  discipline  of 
Methodism  was  gradually  developed  from  the  simple 
elements  that  existed  at  the  beginning. 

That  questions  of  discipline  must  have  occupied 
much  of  Wesley's  attention  at  this  time  is  evident 
from  a  note  which  he  makes  in  his  Journal  shortly 
after  the  adjournment  of  this  Conference.  He  says: 

"The  next  week  we  endeavored  to  purge  the  society  of  all 
that  did  not  walk  according  to  the  gospel.  By  this  means  we 
reduced  the  number  of  members  to  less  than  nineteen  hun- 
dred. But  number  is  an  inconsiderable  circumstance.  May 
God  increase  them  in  faith  and  love !"  8 

In  course  of  time,  the  order  of  business  in  the 
Conference  became  more  regular,  as  well  as  more 

» Minutes,  1744,  Vol.  I,  p.  22;  Peirce's  Polity  of  Wesleyan  Methodists, 
London,  1873,  3d  Ed.,  p.  446. 

•Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  Vol.  VI,  p.  194,  Minutes  of  Conver- 
sation I ;  Myles,  History,  p.  24. 

•Wesley's  Journal,  Wks.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  817,  Amer.  Ed. 


WESLEY'S  CONFERENCES.  9 

elaborate,  so  that  "The  Large  Minutes"  give  us  the 
following  form : 

"  Q.  52.  What  is  the  method  wherein  we  usually  proceed 
in  our  Conferences? 

"  A.  We  inquire,  1.  What  preachers  are  admitted  ?  Who 
remain  on  trial?  Who  are  admitted  on  trial?  Who  desist 
from  traveling?  2.  Are  there  any  objections  to  any  of  tin- 
preachers,  who  are  named  one  by  one?  3.  How  are  the 
preachers  stationed  this  year?  4.  Wluit  numbers  are  in  tin- 
Society?  5.  What  is  the  Kingswool  collection?  6.  What 
boys  are  received  this  year?  7.  What  girls  are  assisted? 
8.  What  is  contributed  for  the  contingent  expenses?  9.  How 
was  this  expended?  10.  What  is  contributed  toward  the  fund 
for  superannuated  and  supernumerary  preachers?  11.  What 
demands  are  there  upon  it?  12.  How  many  preachers'  wives 
are  to  be  provided  for?  By  what  societies?  13.  Where  and 
when  may  our  next  Conference  begin  ?" * 

It  is  easily  seen  how  these  questions  would  at 
that  day  draw  out  every  point  connected  with  the 
condition  of  the  Methodist  Societies,  as  they  touched 
the  ministry,  the  membership,  the  benevolences,  and 
the  cause  of  education ;  and  it  is  manifest  that  this 
interrogatory  order  of  business  was  the  basis  of  (he 
order  which  is  still  used  in  the  conduct  of  the  Con- 
ference work  in  the  United  States,  as  well  as  in  British 
Methodism. 

Mr.  Wesley  encouraged  those  who  were  members 
of  the  Conferences  to  express  their  judgment  with  the 
greatest  freedom.  But  let  it  not  be  supposed  that 
the  Conferences  which  Mr.  Wesley  culled  had  any 
governing  power.  The  members  of  the  Conference 


» Large  Minutes  of  Conference,  printed  1770;  Whitehead's  Life  of 
Wesley,  Vol.  II,  p.  308,  Dublin  Ed.,  IS06;  Wesley's  Works,  Large  .Min- 
utes, Vol.  V,  p.  231. 

2 


10     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

discussed,  but  Mr.  Wesley  decided.  They  debated, 
but  he  determined.  Mr.  Wesley  was  the  government; 
and,  though  he  invited  the  preachers  to  confer  with 
him,  he  did  not  propose  to  abandon  any  of  his  original 
power.  They  had  a  voice  by  his  permission,  but  he 
reserved  the  right  to  direct. 

After  the  lapse  of  years  his  course  was  criticised, 
so  that  he  deemed  it  necessary  in  1766,  about  twenty- 
two  years  after  the  first  Conference  was  held,  to  issue 
an  explanation. 

Reviewing  the  history  of  the  Conferences,  he 
said : 

"In  1744  I  wrote  to  several  clergymen,  and  to  all  who 
then  served  me  as  sons  in  the  gospel,  desiring  them  to  meet 
me  in  London,  to  give  me  their  advice  concerning  the  hest 
method  of  carrying  on  the  work  of  God.  They  did  not  desire 
this  meeting;  but  I  did,  knowing  that  'in  a  multitude  of  coun- 
selors there  is  safety.'  And  when  their  number  increased,  so 
that  it  was  neither  needful  nor  convenient  to  invite  them  all, 
for  several  years  I  wrote  to  those  with  whom  I  desired  to  con- 
fer; and  these  only  met  at  the  place  appointed,  till  at  length 
I  gave  a  general  permission  that  all  who  desired  it  might 
come.  Observe !  I  myself  sent  for  these,  of  my  own  free 
choice ;  and  I  sent  for  them  to  ad_viset  not  govern  me.  Neither 
did  I  at  any  of  those  times  divest  myself  of  any  part  of  that 
power  above  described,  which  the  providence  of  God  had  cast 
upon  me  without  any  design  or  choice  of  mine.  What  is  that 
power?  It  is  a  power  of  admitting  into  and  excluding  from 
the  societies  under  my  care ;  of  choosing  and  removing  stew- 
ards ;  of  receiving  or  of  not  receiving  helpers ;  of  appointing 
them  when,  where,  and  how  to  help  me ;  and  of  desiring  any 
of  them  to  meet  me  when  I  see  good.  And  as  it  was  merely 
in  obedience  to  the  providence  of  God  and  for  the  good  of  the 
people  that  I  at  first  accepted  this  power,  which  I  never 
sought — nay,  a  hundred  times  labored  to  throw  off— so  it  is 
en  the  same  considerations,  not  for  profit,  honor,  or  pleasure, 


WESLEY'S  CONFERENCES.  11 

that  1  use  it  at  this  day.  But  several  gentlemen  are  much 
offended  at  my  having  so  much  power.  "My  answer  to  them 
is  this : 

" '  I  did  not  seek  any  part  of  this  power ;  it  came  upon 
me  unawares.  But  when  it  was  come,  not  daring  to  bury  that 
talent,  I  used  it  to  the  best  of  my  judgment;  yet  I  never  was 
fond  of  it.  I  always  did,  and  do  now,  bear  it  as  my  burden — 
the  burden  which  God  lays  upon  me— and  therefore  I  dare 
not  yet  lay  it  down.'  But  if  you  can  tell  me  any  one  or  any 
five  men  to  whom  I  may  transfer  this  burden,  who  can  and 
will  do  just  what  I  do  now,  I  will  heartily  thank  both  them 
and  you. 

"But  some  of  our  helpers1  say, '  This  is  shackling  free-born 
Englishmen,'  and  demand  a  free  Conference ;  that  is,  a  meeting 
of  all  the  preachers,  wherein  all  things  shall  be  determined  by 
most  votes. 

"I  answer:  'It  is  possible,  after  my  death,  something  of 
this  kind  may  take  place ;  but  not  while  I  live.  To  me  the 
preachers  have  engaged  themselves  to  submit  to  serve  me  as 
sons  in  the  gospel.  But  they  are  not  thus  engaged  to  any 
man,  or  number  of  men,  beside.  To  me  the  people  in  gen- 
eral will  submit.  But  they  will  not  yet  submit  to  any 
other.' 

"  It  is  nonsense,  then,  to  call  my  using  this  power  '  shack- 
ling free-born  Englishmen.'  None  needs  to  submit  to  it  un- 
less he  will ;  so  there  is  no  shackling  in  the  case.  Every 
preacher  and  every  member  may  leave  me  when  he  pleases. 
But  while  he  chooses  to  stay,  it  is  on  the  same  terms  that  he 
joined  me  at  first. 

"  '  But  this  is  arbitrary  power;  this  is  no  less  than  making 
yourself  a  pope.' 

"  If  by  arbitrary  power  you  mean  a  power  which  I  exer- 
cise singly,  without  any  colleagues  then-in,  this  is  certainly 
true ;  but  I  see  no  hurt  in  it.  Arbitrary  in  this  sense  is  a  very 
harmless  word.  If  you  mean  unjust,  unreasonable,  or  tyran- 
nical, then  it  is  not  true. 

"  As  to  the  other  branch  of  the  charge,  it  carries  no  face 


iA  "helper"  was  a  preacher  on  a  circuit,  but  subordinate  to  the 

"  assistant." 


12      GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

of  truth.  The  pope  affirms  that  every  Christian  must  do  all 
he  bids,  and  believe  all  he  says,  under  pain  of  damnation  I 
never  affirmed  anything  that  bears  any  the  most  distant  re- 
semblance to  this.  All  I  affirm  is:  'The  preachers  who 
choose  to  labor  with  me,  choose  to  serve  me  as  sons  in  the 
gospel ;'  and  '  the  people  who  choose  to  be  under  my  care, 
choose  to  be  so  on  the  same  terms  they  were  at  first.' 

"Therefore  all  talk  of  this  kind  is  highly  injurious  to  me, 
who  bear  this  burden  merely  for  your  Bakes.  And  it  is  ex- 
ceedingly mischievous  to  the  people,  tending  to  confound  their 
understandings,  and  to  fill  their  hearts  with  evil  surmisings 
and  unkind  tempers  towards  ine,  to  whom  they  really  owe 
more — for  taking  all  this  load  upon  me,  for  exercising  this 
very  power,  for  shackling  myself  in  this  manner— than  for  all 
my  preaching  put  together;  because  preaching  twice  or  thrice 
a  day  is  no  burden  to  me  at  all,  but  the  care  of  all  the  preachers 
and  all  the  people  is  a  burden  indeed." l 

Again,  in  a  letter  written  January,  1780,  Mr. 
Wesley  once  more  explains  the  situation,  and  defends 
himself  as  follows : 

"  It  pleased  God  by  me  to  awaken  first  my  brother,  and 
then  a  few  others,  who  severally  desired  of  me,  as  a  favor, 
that  I  would  direct  them  in  all  things.  After  my  return  from 
Georgia,  many  were  both  awakened  and  converted  to  God. 
One  and  another  and  another  of  these  desired  to  join  with 
me  as  sons  in  the  gospel,  to  be  directed  by  me.  I  drew  up  a 
few  plain  rules  (observe,  there  was  no  Conference  in  being!) 
and  permitted  them  to  join  me  on  these  conditions.  Who- 
ever, therefore,  violates  these  conditions,  particularly  tliat  of 
being  directed  by  me  in  the  work,  does,  ipso  facto  [by  the  act 
itself],  disjoin  himself  from  me.  This,  Brother  M.  has  done; 
but  he  can  not  see  that  he  has  done  amiss,  and  he  would 
have  it  a  common  cause;  that  is,  he  would  have  all  the 
preachers  do  the  same.  He  thinks  'they  have  a  ri<;ht  so  to 
do.'  So  they  have.  They  have  a  right  to  disjoin  themselves 


•  Minutes,   1776,  Vol.  I,  pp.  61,  63;    Peirce's  Wesleyau  Polity,  pp. 
«47,  448  ;  Wesley's  Works,  Auier.  Ed.,  Vol.  5,  pp.  220-222. 


WESLEY'S  CONFERENCES.  13 

from  me  whenever  they  please ;  but  they  can  not,  in  the  na- 
ture of  the  thing,  join  with  me  any  longer  than  they  are  di- 
rected by  me.  And  what  if  fifty  of  the  present  preachers 
disjoin  themselves?  What  should  I  lose  thereby?  Only  a 
great  deal  of  labor  and  care,  which  I  do  not  seek,  but  endure 
because  no  one  else  can  or  will. 

"You  seetn  likewise  to  have  quite  a  wrong  idea  of  a  Con- 
ference. For  above  six  years  after  my  return  to  England 
there  was  no  such  thing.  I  then  desired  some  of  our  preachers 
to  meet  me,  in  order  to  advise,  not  control  me.  And,  you 
may  observe,  they  had  no  power  at  all  but  what  I  exercised 
through  them.  I  chose  to  exercise  the  power  which  God  had 
given  me  in  this  manner,  both  to  avoid  ostentation  and 
gently  to  habituate  the  people  to  obey  them  when  I  should 
be  taken  from  their  head.  But  as  long  as  I  remain  with  them, 
the  fundamental  rule  of  Methodism  remains  inviolate.  As 
long  as  any  preacher  joins  wi  h  me,  he  is  to  be  directed  by 
me  in  his  work.  Do  not  you  see,  then,  that  Brother  M.,  what- 
ever his  intentions  might  be,  acted  as  wrong  as  wrong  could 
be ;  and  that  the  representing  of  this  as  the  common  cause 
of  the  preachers  was  the  way  to  common  destruction — the  way 
to  turn  all  their  heads  and  to  set  them  in  arms?  It  was  a 
blow  at  the  very  root  of  Methodism.  I  could  not,  therefore,  do 
less  than  I  did ;  it  was  the  very  least  that  could  be  done,  for 
fear  that  evil  should  spread. 

"I  do  not  willingly  speak  of  these  things  at  all,  but  I  do 
it  now  out  of  necessity;  because  I  perceive  the  mind  of  you 
and  some  others  is  a  little  hurt  by  not  seeing  them  in  a  true 
light."1 

It  was  quite  natural,  after  many  years  had 
passed,  that  preachers  who  had  entered  the  ministry 
at  a  remote  period  from  the  early  days  and  primitive 
conditious  would  feel  a  little  restive  in  view  of  the 
fact  that,  though  members  of  the  Conference,  they 
had  no  power  of  self-government,  and  it  would  not 
have  been  unnatural  for  some  who  had  been  with 


i  Wesley's  Works,  Araer.  Ed.,  Vol.  VII,  p.  228 


14     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Mr.  Wesley  from  the  early  days  to  think  the  con- 
ditions had  so  changed  that  there  could,  with  safety, 
be  a  division  of  power. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  quite  as  natural,  and 
logical  for  Mr.  Wesley  to  reason  as  he  did.  It  was 
his  movement,  and  the  people  and  preachers  had 
voluntarily  asked  him  to  assume  the  sphere  of  ruler- 
ship.  He  felt  that  the  responsibility  for  the  success 
of  the  movement  was  upon  him,  and  he  saw  no  way 
of  shifting  that  responsibility  which  would  have  been 
satisfactory  to  the  preachers  and  people,  and  which 
at  the  same  time  would  have  insured  the  success  of  the 
cause.  On  his  theory  he  need  not  have  held  any  Con- 
ference, and  his  call  for  a  Conference  was  really  a  con- 
cession; and,  as  he  remarks,  he  "sent  for  them  to  ad- 
vise, not  govern  him."  He  was  willing  to  confer 
with  them  that  he  might  gain  valuable  suggestions 
from  their  discussions,  but  he  did  not  propose  that 
the  preachers  in  the  Conference  should  "control" 
him.  He  was  under  no  obligation  to  have  a  Confer- 
ence at  all;  but,  like  a  wise  general,  he  called  a  coun- 
cil of  his  officers,  listened  to  their  ideas,  and  then 
issued  his  orders  for  the  campaign  of  the  year  im- 
mediately following. 

In  the  remarks  just  quoted,  Wesley  indicates  his 
desire  to  place  the  burden  of  power  upon  others,  but 
he  .does  not  see  how  it  can  be  done,  and  therefore 
says:  "I  dare  not  yet  lay  it  down."  He  also  sug- 
gests that  after  his  death  power  might  be  reposed  in 
the  Conference  of  all  the  preachers,  who  should  deter- 
mine their  action  by  a  majority  vote. 


WESLEY'S  CONFERENCES.  15 

Speaking  of  the  power  which  he  exercised  through 
those  who  composed  the  Conference,  it  is  to  be  ob- 
served that  he  says :  "  I  chose  to  exercise  the 
power  which  God  had  given  me  in  this  manner,  both 
to  avoid  ostentation,  and  gently  to  habituate  the 
people  to  obey  them  when  I  should  be  taken  from 
their  head;"  so  that  he  was  preparing  the  preachers 
and  people  for  a  time  when,  death  having  released 
him  from  his  responsibility,  the  power  which  he  had 
possessed  would  be  lodged  in  the  Conference  of 
ministers.  For  the  present,  however,  he  believed 
that  it  was  absolutely  essential  to  the  existence  of 
Methodism  that  the  power  of  government  should  be 
exerted  by  him,  for  he  said  :  "  To  me  the  people  in 
general  will  submit.  But  they  will  not  submit  to 
any  other."  In  a  document  which  Mr.  Wesley  pub- 
lished in  1790  appears  the  following  passage : 

"  As  the  number  of  preachers  increased,  it  grew  more  and 
more  difficult  to  fix  the  places  where  each  should  labor  from 
time  to  time.  I  have  often  wished  to  transfer  the  work  of 
stationing  the  preachers  once  a  year  to  one  or  more  of  them- 
selves. But  none  were  willing  to  accept  of  it;  so  I  must  bear 
the  burden  till  my  warfare  shall  be  accomplished."  * 

In  course  of  years  Wesley  not  only  had  his  Con- 
ference, but  also  what  has  been  called  his  "  select_ 
cjunmittee  of  consultation,"2  which  was  composed  of 
a  favored  few,  upon  whom  he  felt  he  could  place 
special  reliance.  It  was,  indeed,  a  sort  of  cabinet  or 
private  council,  where,  perhaps,  there  was  greater 
freedom  of  speech  than  was  deemed  judicious  in  the 

i  Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  Vol.  VII,  p.  33<X 
«Tyennau's  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  428. 


16     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

larger  body  j  but  even  here  it  would  appear  that 
Wesley  reserved  the  right  to  act  according  to  his  own 
judgment,  no  matter  what  might  be  the  views  of  his 
confidential  counselors. 

These  facts  show  that  while  Mr.  Wesley  refused 
to  abandon  the  power  which  he  possessed  at  the  be- 
ginning, nevertheless  he  made  various  concessions, 
and  actually  proposed  to  divest  himself  of  some  of 
his  power,  and  transfer  it  to  others  during  his  life- 
time ;  but  as  circumstances  appeared  from  his  point 
of  view,  the  time  had  not  come  for  abdication  in  any 
particular,  and  he  believed  the  best  he  could  do  was 
to  gradually  prepare  the  way  for  self-government. 

That  the  condition  was  anomalous  is  apparent. 
Generally  speaking,  no  one  man  should  have  such 
authority,  and  Mr.  Wesley  foresaw  that  after  him  no 
man  among  the  Methodists  would  be  permitted  to  ex- 
ercise such  power  of  government.  However,  a  strong 
argument  can  be  drawn  from  the  circumstances  at- 
tending the  birth  of  Methodism  to  maintain  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's claim  for  supreme  control ;  but  since  his  death 
there  is  no  argument  or  circumstance  which  would  give 
a  shadow  of  support  to  the  idea  that  in  Methodism 
such  supreme  power  should  vest  in  any  one  man. 

The  people  and  preachers  came  to  Mr.  Wesley 
voluntarily,  and  placed  themselves  under  his  ruler- 
ship.  They  freely  accepted  his  direction,  and  were 
under  no  compulsion  to  remain  in  association  with 
him.  They  could  stay  or  go  according  to  their  own 
sweet  will,  and  it  is  remarkable  how  few  were  dis- 
satisfied with  his  administration. 


WESLEY'S  CONFERENCES.  17 

Some  may  say  that  it  was  a  despotic  government; 
but  if  so,  it  was  one  the  people  and  the  preachers  in- 
vited and  to  which  they  freely  submitted,  believing 
that,  under  the  circumstances,  from  it  they  would  re- 
ceive the  greatest  benefit. 

No  doubt  Mr.  Wesley  might  have  been  called  a 
despot,  in  the  sense  that  a  despot  is  "  one  who  governs 
according  to  his  own  will,  under  a  recognized  right  or 
custom,  but  uncontrolled  by  constitutional  restrictions 
or  the  wishes  of  his  subjects ;" !  but  in  the  sense  of 
absolute  power,  the  government  of  the  universe  by 
the  Supreme  Ruler  is  a  despotism  which  is  just  and 
good.  If  Mr.  Wesley  was  an  absolute  ruler,  he  did 
not  use  his  power  for  his  own  aggrandizement,  but 
for  the  good  of  his  voluntary  subjects.  He  was  not 
a  despot  in  exercising  an  unjust  and  oppressive 
government,  but  was  a  cultured  Christian,  and  his 
rule  was  kind,  intelligent,  self-sacrificing,  and  Christly. 
He  did  not  govern  by  force,  but  only  directed  those 
who  freely  came  to  him  and  recognized  him  as  a  provi- 
dential leader,  who,  by  force  of  circumstances,  had  a 
right  to  rule.  He  was  not  responsible  to  the  Confer- 
ence, and  was  not  controlled  by  any  ecclesiastical 
organization,  but  he  ever  realized  his  responsibility  to 
Almighty  God  and  the  needs  of  humanity. 

Rather  let  us  call  it  personal  government  in  which 
he  planned,  toiled,  and  denied  himself,  while  others 
reaped  and  enjoyed  the  benefits.  It  was  a  personal 
government,  justified  by  the  circumstances  of  its  ori- 
gin, by  its  Christly  spirit,  by  its  great  wisdom,  and 

1  Century  Dictionary. 


18     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

by  the  strength  of  Wesley's  personal  devotion  to  the 
interests  of  the  governed;  and  was  justified  in  its  con- 
tinuance as  long  as  there  was  the  willing  acquiescence 
of  the  preachers  and  people. 

It  was  a  sort  of"  paternal  government,  but  one 
that  was  directed  by  the  highest  intelligence  and 
conscientiousness;  and,  to  say  the  least,  that  has 
some  advantages  over  a  mere  mobocracy,  where  igno- 
rance, prejudice,  passion,  and  selfishness  dominate. 
And  it  must  be  admitted  that  probably  Methodism 
has  never  been  more  successfully  and  satisfactorily 
governed  than  by  Wesley;  not  only  because  of  the 
circumstances,  but  also  because  his  control  meant 
wisdom,  sympathy,  self-denial,  and  righteousness  of 
an  unusual  type.  Nevertheless  the  historic  fact  re- 
mains that  Wesley's  Conferences  had  no  law-making 
function.  The  members  of  the  Conference  conferred, 
but  the  Conference  did  not  decide. 

The  Rev.  John  Wesley  was  the  government. 

He  made  the  laws;  he  made  the  appointments  of 
the  preachers;  he  decided  who  should  be  admitted 
into  the  societies  and  who  should  be  excluded  from 
the  societies  under  his  care;  he  said  who  should  and 
who  should  not  be  received  into  the  Methodist  min- 
istry; and  the  chapel  property  was  so  deeded  that 
the  trustees  were  compelled  to  admit  him  to  the 
pulpit,  and  also  to  admit  such  preachers  as  he 
might  appoint.  In  brief,  Mr.  Wesley  embodied 
in  himself  supreme  legislative,  executive,  and  ju- 
dicial functions.  It  was  the  era  of  personal  gov- 
ernment, and  no  matter  what  possible  criticisms 


WESLEY'S  CONFERENCES.  19 

may  be  suggested,  it  must  be  confessed  that  it  waa 
a  righteous  and  marvelously  successful  government. 

Nevertheless,  no  matter  what  may  be  said  in  jus- 
tification of  such  centralized  forms  under  such  condi- 
tions, it  must  be  admitted  that  under  ordinary  circum- 
stances such  concentrated  authority  gives  a  most 
dangerous  form  of  government. 

It  is  true  that  the  best  government  is  relative, 
and  depends  upon  the  character  of  the  governed ; 
but,  whatever  may  be  said  as  to  formative  periods, 
we  can  not  doubt  that  where  the  governed  have  gen- 
eral intelligence  and  strong  conscientiousness,  the 
safest  course  is  in  the  diffusion  of  power. 

Wesley's  government  may  be  defended  on  the 
ground  of  peculiar  conditions  and  successful  results ; 
but,  with  different  conditions,  a  repetition  of  such  con- 
trol would  be  universally  deprecated,  and  should  not 
be  tolerated. 


CHAPTER  II. 

WESLEY'S  EARLY  PLANS  FOR  PERPETUATING  BRIT- 

ISH  METHODISM  AND  ENDOWING  THE 

CONFERENCE  WITH  POWER. 

r  I^HE  Rev.  John  Wesley  did  not  at  first  realize  the 
JL  vastness  of  the  work  in  which  he  had  engaged  > 
but  when  its  real  proportions  began  to  be  appreciated, 
he  had  no  thought  of  ever  permitting  it  to  disappear, 
either  during  his  life,  or,  if  he  could  prevent  it,  after 
his  death. 

Moving  forward  at  first  without  any  particular 
plan,  he  followed  what  he  believed  were  the  indica- 
tions of  Providence,  and  so  gradually  found  himself 
doing  things  which  he  believed  were  providentially 
right,  but  which  would  have  shocked  his  early  High- 
Church  ism. 

The  result  was  that  in  the  course  of  years  there 
grew  around  him  a  great  religious  organization,  which, 
years  before  his  death,  had  spread  throughout  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland  and  beyond  the  seas.  His  so- 
cieties and  chapels  dotted  the  kingdom,  and  his  de- 
voted preachers  served  wherever  he  sent  them. 

At  no  time  had  the  Church  of  England  any  con- 
trol over  the  Methodist  societies,  the  Methodist 
chapels  and  schools,  or  the  Methodist  Conference. 
The  Established  Church  had  not,  through  convoca- 
tion, bishop  or  archbishop,  or  in  any  other  way, 


WESLEY'S  EARLY  PLANS.  21 

exercised  control  over  the  Methodist  movement.  It 
never  had  belonged  to  the  Establishment,  though  a 
number  of  its  ministers  had  been  regularly  ordained 
clergymen  of  the  State  Church.  Many  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  societies  were  connected  with  the  parish 
Church,  but  other  individuals  in  the  societies  never 
had  any  relation  with  the  Church  of  England. 

As  an  organization,  Wesleyan  Methodism  never 
was  connected  with  or  under  the  control  of  the- State 
Church.  As  it  always  had  been  distinct,  it  could  not 
be  severed  from  it.  What  it  required  was  not  sepa- 
ration, but  a  provision  for  its  legal  perpetuation. 

There  are  many  kinds  of  evidence  to  prove  that 
Mr.  Wesley  never  designed  that  it  should  be  absorbed, 
or  that  it  should  be  permitted  to  evaporate.  A.S  long 
as  he  lived  and  preserved  his  mental  vigor,  he  could 
hold  both  preachers  and  people  together;  but  he  saw 
that  serious  difficulties  might  arise  when  death  re- 
moved him  from  their  midst. 

The  matter  appeared  to  cost  him  much  anxiety. 
The  rules  for  the  societies  had  become  well  understood, 
and  the  general  economy  of  Methodism  was  well 
settled.  In  the  Conferences  Mr.  Wesley  had  given 
the  preachers  a  training  which  would  be  helpful 
when  the  time  for  self-government  arrived,  and  yet 
there  were  many  contingencies  for  which  provision 
should  be  made. 

In  anticipation  of  possible  difficulties,  Mr.  Wesley, 
on  Friday,  August  4, 1769,  read  to  the  Conference,  then 
in  session  at  Leeds,  the  following  mode  of  procedure 
in  case  of  his  death,  so  that  when  he  had  ceased  to 


22     GOVERNING  CONFERBNCK  IN  METHODISM. 

be  the  bond  of  union,  organic  Methodism  would  still 
be  perpetuated: 

"Mv  DEAR  BRETHREN, — It  has  long  been  my  desire  that 
all  those  ministers  of  our  Church  who  believe  and  preach  sal- 
vation by  faith,  might  cordially  agree  between  themselves,  and 
not  hinder,  but  help  one  another.  After  occasionally  pressing 
this  in  private  conversation  wherever  I  had  opportunity,  I 
wrote  down  my  thoughts  upon  the  head,  and  sent  them  to  each 
in  a  letter.  Out  of  fifty  or-sixty  to  whom  I  wrote,  only  three 
vouchsafed  me  an  answer.  So  I  gave  this  up.  I  can  do  no 
more.  They  are  a  rope  of  sand,  and  such  they  will  continue. 
But  it  is  otherwise  with  the  traveling  preachers  in  our  Con- 
nection. You  are  at  present  one  body;  you  act  in  concert 
with  each  other,  and  by  united  counsels.  And  now  is  the 
time  to  consider  what  can  be  done  in  order  to  continue  this 
union.  Indeed,  as  long  as  I  live  there  will  be  no  great  diffi- 
culty. I  am,  under  God,  a  center  of  union  to  all  our  traveling 
as  well  as  local  preachers. 

"They  all  know  me  and  my  communication ;  they  all  love 
me  for  my  work's  sake ;  and,  therefore,  were  it  only  out  of  re- 
gard to  me,  they  will  continue  connected  with  each  other. 
But  by  what  means  may  this  connection  be  preserved  when 
God  removes  me  from  you? 

"I  take  it  for  granted  it  can  not  be  preserved  by  any 
means  between  those  who  have  not  a  single  eye.  Those  who 
aim  at  anything  but  the  glory  of  God  and  the  salvation  of 
men — who  desire  or  seek  any  earthly  thing,,  whether  honor, 
profit,  or  ease — will  not,  can  not  continue  in  the  Connection ; 
it  will  not  answer  their  design.  Some  of.  them,  perhaps  a 
fourth  of  the  whole  number,  will  procure  preferment  in  the 
-  Church.  Others  will  turn  Independents,  and  get  separate  con- 
gregations. Lay  your  accounts  with  this,  arid  be  not  sur- 
prised if  some  you  do  not  suspect  be  of  this  number.  But 
what  method  can  be  taken  to  preserve  a  firm  union  between 
those  who  choose  to  remain  together? 

"Perhaps  you  might  take  some  such  steps  as  these  : 

"On  notice  of  my  death,  let  all  the  preachers  in  England 
and  Ireland  repair  to  London  within  six  weeks. 

"Let  them  seek  God  by  solemn  fasting  and  prayer. 


WESLEY'S  EARLY  PLANS.  23 

"Let  them  draw  up  articles  of  agreement,  to  be  signed  by 
those  who  choose  to  act  in  concert. 

"  Let  those  be  dismissed  who  do  not  choose  it,  in  the  most 
friendly  manner  possible. 

"Let  them  choose,  by  votes,  a  committee  of  three,  five,  or 
seven,  each  of  whom  is  to  be  moderator  in  his  turn. 

"  Let  the  committee  do  what  I  do  now, — propose  preachers 
to  be  tried,  admitted,  or  excluded,  fix  the  place  of  each  preachei 
for  the  ensuing  year  an  I  the  time  of  the  next  Conference. 

"Can  anything  be  done  now  in  order  to  lay  a  foundation 
for  this  future  union  ?  Would  it  not  be  well  for  any  that  are 
willing  to  sign  some  articles  of  agreement  before  God  calls  me 
hence  ? 

"  Suppose  something  like  these: 

"We,  whose  names  are  underwritten,  being  thoroughly 
convinced  of  the  necessity  of  a  close  union  between  those 
whom  God  is  pleased  to  use  as  instruments  in  this  glorious 
work,  in  order  to  preserve  this  union  between  ourselves,  are 
resolved,  God  being  our  helper, — 

"  1.  To  devote  ourselves  entirely  to  God,  denying  ourselves, 
taking  up  our  cross  daily,  steadily  aiming  at  one  thing,  to  save 
our  own  souls  and  them  that  hear  us. 

"2.  To  preach  the  Old  Methodist  Doctrines,  and  no  other, 
contained  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Conferences. 

"3.  To  observe  and  enforce  the  whole  Methodist  Dis- 
cipline, laid  down  in  the  said  Minutes."  1 

One  result  of  this  proposition  was  that  "  the 
preachers  then  desired  Mr.  Wesley  to  extract  the  most 
material  part  of  the  Minutes,  and  send  a  copy  to 
each  assistant,  which  he  might  communicate  to  all  his 
preachers  in  his  circuit,  to  be  seriously  considered."  3 

In  his  "  Short  History  of  the  People  Called  Meth- 


i  Minutes,  1769,  Vol.  I,  pp.  87-89;  Peirce's  Wesleyan  Polity,  3d  Ed., 
pp.  13-15. 

'Minutes,  1769,  Vol.  I, pp.  87-89;  Peirce's  Wesleyan  Polity,  pp.  13-15; 
John  Whltehead,  M.  D.,  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  II,  pp.  30o-307,  Dublin, 
1806. 


24      GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

odists,"  Wesley,  referring  to  the  first  Conference  held 
in  1744,  says:  "  The  result  of  our  consultations  we  set 
down  to  be  the  rules  of  our  future  practice,"  and  thus 
began  a  broad  disciplinary  system.  In  1753,  Wesley 
made  his  first  collation  from  the  Minutes  of  the  several 
Conferences,  and  issued  the  first  edition  of  the  Large 
Minutes.  In  1763  he  issued  a  second  edition.1 

At  the  present  date,  1769,  sixteen  Conferences  had 
been  held,  and  new  rules,  or  new  applications  of  old 
rules,  had  been  accumulating  since  1763,  but  were 
scattered  through  the  several  Annual  Minutes.  It 
was,  therefore,  a  wise  request  that  a  digest  of  the 
Minutes  should  be  made  as  a  part  of  the  plan  for  per- 
petuating Wesleyan  Methodism  after  the  decease  of 
Mr.  Wesley. 

This  request  Mr.  Wesley  complied  with  the  next 
year,  when  he  issued  an  octavo  pamphlet  of  sixty 
pages,  entitled  "  Minutes  of  Several  Conversations 
between  the  Rev.  Messrs.  John  and  Charles  Wesley 
and  Others."  This  publication,  which  has  been  called 
"The  Large  Minutes  of  Conference,"2  was  a  new 
and  enlarged  edition  of  the  Minutes  published  in 
1763,  embracing  Minutes  of  all  the  Conferences  held 
from  that  period  to  the  year  1770.3 

Thus  was  put  in  shape  that  which  would  be  the 
formulated  Discipline  of  Methodism,  and  the  author- 
ity to  which  appeal  could  be  made  should  Mr.  Wes- 
ley pass  away. 


» L.  Tyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  II,  p.  474. 

«  Whitehead's  Wesley,  Vol.  II,  p.  308. 

•L.  Tyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  80. 


WESLEY'S  EARLY  PLANS.  2& 

The  second  result  was  the  acceptance  of  the  main 
proposition,  and  the  signing  the  instrument  pledging 
the  preachers  "to  observe  and  enforce  the  whole 
Methodist  Discipline,  laid  down  in  the  said  Min- 
utes," etc. 

Here,  then,  was  a  plan  not  only  for  the  perpetuity 
of  Methodist  doctrine  and  Methodist  discipline  in 
general,  but  also  for  the  perpetuity  of  the  Conference, 
and  its  endowment  with  power  to  govern  after  his 
decease;  and  specifying  that  the  Conference  should 
"choose  by  votes"  a  committee,  each  member  of 
which  should  be  moderator  in  turn,  and  that  the 
whole  committee  should  have  the  power  which  had 
been  concentrated  in  John  Wesley.  Perhaps  from 
this  suggestion  of  a  committee  grew  the  idea  of  a 
Stationing  Committee,  adopted  in  England  'after  Wes- 
ley's death. 

Dr.  Whitehead  states  that "  These  articles  were  then 
signed  by  many  of  the  preachers.  But  some  years 
afterward  others  had  influence  enough,  however,  to 
prevail  upon  Mr.  Wesley  to  relinquish  the  present 
plan,  and  leave  the  mode  of  union  among  the  preach- 
ers, after  his  death,  to  their  own  deliberations."  * 

We  are  not  quite  sure  as  to  the  precise  reference 
of  Dr.  Whitehead's  remark.  It  might  be  supposed 
to  have  some  relation  to  the  matter  which  will  be 
treated  in  the  next  chapter;  but  if  so,  the  observation 
is  not  pertinent,  for  it  meditated  a  distinct  plan  for  a 
different  object  and  a  more  mature  arrangement  in- 
volving the  same  purpose.  We  might  imagine  that 

>  Wbitebead,  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  II,  p.  807. 
3 


26     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

perhaps  it  had  some  application  to  Wesley's  desire 
that  the  Rev.  John  Fletcher,  vicar  of  Madeley, 
should  be  his  active  assistant  during  his  old  age,  and 
his  probable  successor  in  tbe  Methodist  leadership 
after  his  decease;  but  the  points  do  not  fit. 

It  is  proper,  however,  that  a  word  should  be  said 
in  regard  to  the  later  project.  The  Rev.  Jean  Guil- 
laume  de  la  Flechiere — or,  as  he  was  generally  called 
in  England,  his  adopted  country,  John  William 
Fletcher — was  born  in  Switzerland,  September  12, 
1729,  so  that  he  was  about  twenty-five  years  younger 
than  Mr.  Wesley.  He  belonged  to  a  distinguished 
family,  and  was  highly  educated.  His  parents  in- 
tended him  for  the  pulpit;  but  his  preference  was  for 
a  soldier's  life,  and  at  twenty  he  entered  the  service 
of  Portugal  as  captain.  At  last  he  found  his  way  to 
England,  and,  about  1755,  joined  the  Methodists.  On 
the  6th  of  March,  1757,  when  in  his  twenty-eighth 
year,  he  was  ordained  deacon  in  the  English  Church, 
at  the  Chapel  Royal,  St.  James's,  and  the  following 
Sunday,  March  13th,  he  was  ordained  priest,  at 
Whitehall,  London,  by  the  Bishop  of  Bangor. 

Fletcher's  devotion  to  Mr.  Wesley  was  very  great, 
and  as  soon  as  he  was  ordained  priest  he  hastened  to 
the  West  Street  Chapel,  to  assist  Wesley  in  adminis- 
tering the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.1 

In  his  Journal,  under  date  of  Sunday,  March  13, 
1757,  Mr.  Wesley  has  this  entry:  "Finding  myself 
weak  at  Snowfields,  I  prayed  (if  he  saw  good)  that 

'L.  Tyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  II,  p.  268;  see  Wesley'g 
Sermon  on  tbe  Death  of  Mr.  Fletcher,  Ser.  LVIII,  Amer.  Ed. 


WESLEY'S  EARLY  PLANS.  27 

God  would  send  me  help  at  the  chapel,  and  I  had  it. 
A  clergyman,  whom  I  never  saw  before,  came  and  of- 
fered me  his  assistance ;  and  as  soon  as  I  had  done 
preaching,  Mr.  Fletcher  came,  who  had  just  then  been 
ordained  priest,  and  hastened  to  the  chapel  on  pur- 
pose to  assist,  as  he  supposed  me  to  be  alone."  The 
following  Sunday,  March  20th,  he  adds  this  note : 
"  Mr.  Fletcher  helped  me  again.  How  wonderful 
are  the  ways  of  God!  When  my  bodily  strength 
failed,  and  none  in  England  were  able  and  willing_to 
assist  me,  he  sent  me  help  from  the  mountains  of 
Switzerland,  and  a  helpmeet  for  me  in  every  respect. 
Where  could  I  have  found  such  another?"1 

This  is  the  man  who,  when  offered  the  living  of 
Dunham,  in  Cheshire,  which  was  worth  about  £400 
a  year,  thanked  his  patron,  and  replied:  "Alas!  sir, 
Dunham  will  not  suit  me ;  there  is  too  much  money 
and  too  little  labor;"  and  then  accepted  Madeley, 
where  the  living  was  not  worth  half  as  much,  and  where 
the  work  was  harder  and  among  a  people  generally 
notorious  for  their  ignorance  and  impiety.2 

He  was  a  most  devoted  pastor,  an  eloquent 
preacher,  and  a  great  polemical  writer.  Fletcher  was 
indeed  the  great  Methodist  controversialist,  and 
though  he  was  saintly  in  the  gentleness  of  his  life, 
he  struck  vigorous  blows  in  defense  of  Methodist 
Arminianism.3  He  was  Wesley's  champion,  an  at- 
tendant at  his  Conferences,  and,  notwithstanding  the 

i  Wesley's  Works,  Ainer.  Ed.,  Vol.  Ill,  Journal,  p.  623. 

•  Rev.  Robert  Cox,  A.  M.,  Life  of  Rev.  John  William  Fletcher,  1st 
A.mer.  Ed.,  pp.  33-35. 

*  See  his  Checks  to  Antlnomlaniam. 


28     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

difference  in  their  years,  one  of  his  most  reliable 
counselors.  In  him  sweetness  and  strength  combined. 

The  Rev.  John  Venn,  vicar  of  Huddersfield,  ex- 
claimed: "Fletcher  was  a  luminary.  A  luminary,  did 
I  say  ?  He  was  a  sun.  I  have  known  all  the  great  men 
for  these  fifty  years,  but  I  have  known  none  like  him. 
I  was  intimately  acquainted  with  him,  and  was  once 
under  the  same  roof  with  him  for  six  weeks  together, 
during  which  time  I  never  heard  him  say  a  single 
word  which  was  not  proper  to  be  spoken,  and  which 
had  not  a  tendency  to  minister  grace  to  the  hearers."1 

In  1770,  Mr.  Fletcher  made  a  visit  to  Nyon,  Swit- 
zerland, his  native  place,  and,  by  his  public  preaching 
and  private  character,  he  deeply  impressed  those  who 
heard  or  came  in  contact  with  him;  so  much  so,  in- 
deed, that  a  venerable  clergyman  earnestly  urged  him 
to  lengthen  his  stay  among  them.  Finding  that  his 
request  could  not  be  granted,  he  turned  to  Mr. 
Fletcher's  traveling  companion,  and,  with  tears  in  his 
eyes,  exclaimed :  "  O,  sir,  how  unfortunate  for  this 
country !  During  my  day  it  has  produced  but  one 
angel,  and  it  is  our  lot  to  be  deprived  of  him."  * 

In  his  sermon  on  the  death  of  Mr.  Fletcher,  who 
died  on  Sunday  evening,  August  14,  1785,  in  the 
fifty-sixth  year  of  his  age,  Mr.  Wesley  remarks : 
"I  was  intimately  acquainted  with  him  for  above 
thirty  years.  I  conversed  with  him  morning,  noon, 
and  night,  without  the  least  reserve,  during  a  journey 


»  Rev.  Robert  Cox,  Life  of  Fletcher,  1st  Amer.  Ed.,  p.  174. 
*  Kev.  Robert  Cox,  A.  M.,  Life  of  Rev.  John  William  Fletcher.  1st 
Amer.  Ed.,  1837,  p.  76. 


WESLEY'S  EARLY  PLANS.  29 

of  many  hundred  miles,  and  in  all  that  time  I  never 
heard  him  speak  one  improper  word  nor  saw  him  do 
an  improper  action.  To  conclude :  Many  exemplary 
men  have  I  known,  holy  in  heart  and  life,  within 
fourscore  years,  but  one  equal  to  him  have  I  not 
known — one  so  inwardly  and  outwardly  Mevoted  to 
God.  So  unblamable  a  character  in  every  respect  I 
have  not  found  either  in  Europe  or  America,  nor  do 
I  expect  to  find  another  such  on  this  side  of  eternity." l 

Surely  no  one  will  wonder  if  Mr.  Wesley  for  a 
time  entertained  the  thought  of  making  this  marvel- 
ous man  his  general  assistant,  and  of  presenting  him 
as  the  proper  person  to  succeed  him. 

Possibly,  Mr.  Wesley  had  doubts  as  to  whether 
the  Conference,  when  left  to  itself  after  his  death,  would 
agree  and  hold  together  after  it  had  for  so  long  a 
time  learned  to  depend  upon  the  leadership  of  one 
man.  The  thought  may  have  occurred  to  him  that, 
even  with  the  Conference  free  to  govern  itself,  it 
would  need  a  specially  able  chief.  However  it  may 
have  been,  to  his  mind  Fletcher  was  the  best  fitted, 
and,  being  twenty-five  years  his  junior,  would  in  all 
probability  outlive  him. 

In  January,  1773,  John  Wesley  spent  some  time 
at  Shoreham,  doubtless  for  the  purpose  of  consulting 
the  venerable  Vicar  of  Shoreham,  the  Reverend  Vin- 
cent Perronet,  who  was  born  of  Swiss-French  parent- 
age about  the  year  1700,  and  therefore  was  two  or 
three  years  older  than  Mr.  Wesley.  Both  of  his 
sons — Charles  and  Edward  Perronet — became  inti- 

1  Wesley's  Sermons,  Amor.  Ed.,  Vol.  I,  p.  633. 


30     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

mately  acquainted  with  the  Wesleys  at  Oxford,  and 
were  Methodist  preachers  for  years.  John  Wesley 
found  in  the  vicar  a  true  friend,  a  warm  admirer,  and 
a  most  confidential  counselor.  So  intimate  were  their 
relations  that  Charles  Wesley  called  him  the  "  Arch- 
bishop of  Methodism." 

The  records  are  silent  as  to  what  was  said  at  that 
visit;  but  from  Shoreham,  John  Wesley  thus  wrote  to 
his  beloved  Fletcher : 

"  DBAB  SIR, — What  an  amazing  work  has  God  wrought  in 
these  kingdoms  in  less  than  forty  years!  And  it  not  only 
continues,  but  increases  throughout  England,  Scotland,  and 
Ireland ;  nay,  it  has  lately  spread  into  New  York,  Pennsyl- 
vania, Virginia,  Maryland,  and  Carolina.  But  the  wise  men 
of  the  world  say:  '  When  Mr.  Wesley  drops,  then  all  this  is  at 
an  end.'  And  so  it  surely  will,  unless,  before  God  calls  him 
hence,  one  is  found  to  stand  in  his  place.  For 

'OvK  ayaiSov  noTiVKoipaviij-  elf  noipavof  tara.1 

I  see  more  and  more,  unless  there  be  one  nyweoruf,'  the  work 
can  never  be  carried  on.  The  body  of  the  preachers  are  not 
united,  nor  will  any  part  of  them  submit  to  the  rest ;  so  that 
there  must  be  one  to  preside  over  all,  or  the  work  will  indeed 
come  to  an  end. 

"But  who  is  sufficient  for  these  things?  Qualified  to  pre- 
side both  over  the  preachers  and  people?  He  must  be  a  man 
of  faith  and  love,  and  one  that  has  a  single  eye  to  the  advance- 
ment of  the  kingdom  of  God.  He  must  have  a  clear  under- 
standing ;  a  knowledge  of  men  and  things,  particularly  of  the 
Methodist  doctrine  and  discipline;  a  ready  utterance;  dili- 
gence and  activity ;  with  a  tolerable  share  of  health.  There 
must  be  added  to  these,  favor  with  the  people— with  the  Meth- 
odists in  general.  For  unless  God  turn  their  eyes  and  hearts 
toward  him,  he  will  be  quite  incapable  of  the  work.  He  must 
likewise  have  some  degree  of  learning;  because  there  are  many 

1  The  rule  of  the  nanny  \n  not  good ;  let  there  be  one  ruler. 
•  Set  at  the  head  as  leader;  one  who  presidos  over  the  rest. 


WESLEY'S  EARLY  PLANS.  31 

adversaries,  learned  as  well  as  unlearned,  whose  mouths  must 
be  stopped.  But  this  can  not  be  done,  unless  he  be  able  to 
meet  them  on  their  own  ground. 

"But  has  God  provided  one  so  qualified?  Who  is  he? 
Thou  art  the  man !  God  has  given  you  a  measure  of  loving 
faith,  and  a  single  eye  to  his  glory.  He  has  given  yon  some 
knowledge  of  men  and  things,  particularly  of  the  whole  plan 
of  Methodism.  You  are  blessed  with  some  health,  activity, 
and  diligence,  together  with  a  degree  of  learning.  And  to  all 
these  he  has  lately  added,  by  a  way  none  could  have  foreseen, 
favor  both  with  the  preachers  and  the  whole  people.  Come  out, 
in  the  name  of  God !  Come  to  the  help  of  the  Lord  against 
the  mighty  I  Come,  while  I  am  alive  and  capable  of  labor — 

14  •  Dum  superest  Laches!  quod  torqueat,  et  pedibus  me 
Porto  ineis,  nullo  dex train  subeunte  baclllo.'* 

"  Come,  while  I  am  able,  God  assisting,  to  build  you  up 
in  the  faith,  to  ripen  your  gifts,  and  to  introduce  you  to  the 
people.  Nil  lanli.*  What  possible  employment  can  you  have 
which  is  of  so  great  importance? 

"  But  you  will  naturally  say :  '  I  am  not  equal  to  the  task ; 
I  have  neither  grace  nor  gifts  for  such  an  employment.'  You 
say  true ;  it  is  certain  you  have  not — and  who  has  ?  But  do  you 
not  know  Him  who  is  able  to  give  them?  Perhaps  not  at 
once ;  but  rather  day  by  day,  as  each  is,  so  shall  your  strength 
be.  'But  this  implies,'  you  may  say,  'a  thousand  crosses, 
such  as  I  feel  I  am  not  able  to  bear.' 

"  You  are  not  able  to  bear  them  now,  and  they  are  not 
now  come.  Whenever  they  do  come,  will  He  not  send  them 
in  due  number,  weight,  and  measure?  And  will  they  not  all 
be  for  your  profit,  that  you  may  be  a  partaker  of  His 
holiness  ? 

"Without  conferring,   therefore,   with  flesh  and  blood, 
come  and  strengthen  the  hands,  comfort  the  heart,  and  share 
the  labors  of  your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 
"JOHN  WESLEY."' 

1  While  Lachesls  has  some  thread  of  life  to  spin,  and  I  walk  on  my 
own  feet  without  the  help  of  a  staff.  (Juvenal,  Sat.  ill.) 

•  Nothing  is  of  so  much  concern. 

«  Whitehead's  Life  of  Wesley,  Dublin,  1808,  Vol.  II,  pp.  842-344 ;  Wes- 
ley's Works,  Am.  Ed.,  Vol.  VI,  pp.  687,  688, 


32     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

The  letter  evidently  grew  out  of  Wesley's  anxiety 
for  the  perpetuity  of  Methodism.  Seeing  the  rapid 
growth  of  the  societies,  "  he  became,  therefore,"  says 
Dr.  Whitehead,  the  author  of  the  "  Life  of  Wesley," 
"every  day  more  solicitous  to  provide  for  their  unity 
and  permanency  after  his  decease,  wishing  to  pre- 
serve at  the  same  time  the  original  doctrines  and 
economy  of  the  Methodists.  He  knew  the  views 
and  opinions  of  the  preachers  better  than  any  other 
individual  possibly  could,  having  persons  in  all  places 
who  constantly  informed  him  of  everything  of  im- 
portance that  was  said  or  done.  From  the  beginning 
he  had  stood  at  the  head  of  the  Connection,  and  by 
the  general  suffrage  had  acted  as  dictator  in  matters 
relating  to  the  government  of  the  societies.  He  had 
often  found  that  all  his  authority  was  barely  suffi- 
cient to  preserve  peace  and  unanimity,  and  seemed  to 
conclude  that  if  his  authority  were  to  cease,  or  not  to 
be  transferred  to  another  at  his  death,  the  preachers 
and  people  would  fall  into  confusion."1 

Dr.  Whitehead,  commenting  on  Wesley's  letter  to 
Fletcher,  says : 

"  This  warm  and  sincere  invitation  to  a  situation  not  only 
respected,  but  even  reverenced,  by  so  large  a  body  of  people, 
must  have  been  highly  pleasing  to  Mr.  Fletcher,  especially  as 
it  came  from  a  person  he  most  sincerely  loved,  whose  supe- 
rior abilities,  learning,  and  labors  he  admired,  and  to  whose 
success  in  the  ministry  he  wished  to  give  every  assistance  in 
his  power.  But  he  well  knew  the  occasional  embarrassments 
Mr.  Wesley  met  with  in  the  government  of  some  preachers, 


i  John  Whitehead,  M.  D.,  Life  of  Wesley,  Dublin,  1808,  Vol.  II,  pp. 
841,842. 


WESLEY'S  EARLY  PLANS.  83 

though  he  alone,  under  the  providence  of  God,  had  given  ex- 
istence to  their  present  character,  influence,  and  usefulness ; 
and  that  a  determination  prevailed  among  them  not  to  be 
under  the  control  of  any  one  man  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley. Under  these  circumstances,  he  probably  saw  nothing  be 
fore  him  but  storms  and  tempests,  especially  if  he  should  live 
to  be  alone  in  the  office.  He  therefore  determined  not  to  launch 
his  little  bark  on  so  tempestuous  an  ocean."  l 

This  is  certainly  a  very  strange  reason  for  Dr. 
Whitehead  to  give,  and  the  inference  is  not  sustained 
by  the  facts.  Mr.  Fletcher  was  not  a  timid  man,  but 
a  man  of  great  courage,  and  if  he  believed  a  thing 
was  his  duty  he  would  have  laid  down  his  life  in  its 
discharge.  Further,  Mr.  Fletcher  was  such  a  pure 
and  transparent  man  that  had  Dr.  Whitehead's  reason 
been  Mr.  Fletcher's  motive  for  declining  the  invita- 
tion at  that  time,  he  would  certainly  have  revealed  it 
in  his  reply.  But  we  will  permit  the  letter  to  speak 
for  itself. 

Before  presenting  the  letter,  however,  we  should 
quote  some  observations  made  by  the  Rev.  Henry 
Moore,  one  of  the  trustees  of  Mr.  Wesley's  manu- 
scripts. Referring  to  the  remarks  of  Dr.  Whitehead 
he  says:  "  He  wrote  on  a  subject  with  which  he  was 
wholly  unacquainted.  The  charity  of  his  surmisings 
is,  however,  very  manifest.  He  did  not  know  that 
Mr.  Fletcher  had  ever  answered  Mr.  Wesley's  letter ; 
but  I  am  happy  in  being  able  to  lay  his  answer  be- 
fore the  reader,  who  will  see  in  it  the  very  different 
spirit  of  that  man  of  God.  His  faith,  indeed,  respect- 
ing the  continuance  of  the  whole  body  of  the  preachers 

>  J.  Whitehead,  Life  of  Wesley,  Dublin,  1806,  Vol.  II,  p.  814. 


34     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

in  their  first  calling  seems  to  have  been  shaken,  as  Mr. 
Wesley's  also  was;  but  there  is  no  such  feeling  ex- 
pressed as  that  which  festered  in  the  mind  of  Dr. 
Whitehead.  His  attachment  to  that  work,  which  he 
fully  believed  to  be  of  God,  is  also  strikingly  evi- 
dent. He  certainly  could  not  be  easily  persuaded  to 
take  the  station  which  Mr.  Wesley  wished  him  to  take, 
as  his  well-known  humility  used  to  give  the  preachers 
trouble  by  his  constantly  preferring  them  before  him- 
self. But  he  certainly  would  have  taken  a  most  decided 
part  in  the  work  if  his  total  loss  of  health,  which 
obliged  him  to  leave  his  parish  and  to  retire  to  Switz- 
erland, had  not  prevented  it.  Upon  his  return,  with 
his  strength  renewed  in  some  degree,  he  married,  and 
thus  became  settled  in  his  parish,  evidencing  to  the 
last  his  ardent  love  to  the  work  of  God,  and  to  those 
who  were  employed  in  it.  At  the  last  Conference 
which  he  attended,  in  the  year  1784  (the  year  before 
his  death),  he  entreated  Mr.  Wesley  to  put  Madeley 
into  the  Minutes  as  a  Methodist  circuit,  and  that  he 
might  be  put  down  as  a  supernumerary  there;  thus 
wishing  to  be  still  more  united  to  those  whom  he  so 
much  loved."1 

The  reply  of  Mr.  Fletcher  does  not  contain  a  sin- 
gle sentiment  to  sustain  Dr.  Whitehead's  inference. 
While  he  does  not  accept  the  appointment,  he  does  not 
peremptorily  and  permanently  refuse.  He  wants  "  a 
fuller  persuasion  that  the  time  has  come,"  and  pro- 
poses to  pray  for  light,  and  intimates  that,  when  the 

i  Rev.  Henry  Moore,  only  surviving  trustee  of  Mr.  Wesley's  MSS., 
Life  of  Rev.  John  Wesley,  A.  M.f  Amer.  Ed.,  1885,  Vol.  II,  p.  217. 


WESLEY'S  EARLY  PLANS.  35 

time  of  need  comes  at  Wesley's  death,  if  he  is  still 
living,  he  "  will  not  be  backward  to  throw  in  his 
mite." 

His  letter  will  more  fully  represent  his  case.  It  is 
as  follows: 

"MADELEY,  6th  February,  1773. 

"  REVEREND  AND  DEAR  SIR, — I  hope  the  Lord,  who  has  so 
wonderfully  stood  by  you  hitherto,  will  preserve  you  to  see 
many  of  your  sheep,  and  me  among  the  rest,  enter  into  rest. 
Should  Providence  call  you  first,  I  shall  do  my  best,  by  the 
Lord's  assistance,  to  help  your  brother  to  gather  the  wreck  and 
keep  together  those  who  are  not  absolutely  bent  upon  throw- 
ing away  the  Methodist  doctrine  or  discipline,  as  soon  as  he 
that  now  letteth  shall  be  removed  out  of  their  way.  Every 
little  help  will  then  be  necessary,  and  I  hope  I  shall  not  be 
backward  to  throw  in  my  mite. 

"  In  the  meantime,  you  stand  sometimes  in  need  of  an  as- 
sistant to  serve  tables  and  occasionally  to  fill  up  a  gap.  Provi- 
dence visibly  appointed  me  to  that  office  many  years  ago  ;  and 
though  it  no  less  evidently  called  me  here,  yet  I  have  not 
been  without  doubt,  especially  for  some  years  past,  whether  it 
would  not  be  expedient  that  I  should  resume  my  place  as  your 
deacon ;  not  with  any  view  of  presiding  over  the  Methodists 
after  you  (God  knows!),  but  to  save  you  a  little  in  your  old 
age,  and  be  in  the  way  of  receiving,  and  perhaps  of  doing, 
more  good.  I  have  sometimes  considered  how  shameful  it  was 
that  no  clergyman  should  join  you  to  keep  in  the  Church  the 
work  which  the  Lord  had  enabled  you  to  carry  on  therein ; 
and,  as  the  little  estate  I  have  in  my  native  country  is  suffi- 
cient for  my  maintenance,  I  have  thought  I  would  one  day  or 
other  offer  you  and  the  Methodists  my  free  services. 

"  While  my  love  of  retirement,  and  my  dread  of  appearing 
upon  a  higher  stage  than  that  I  stand  upon  here,  made  me 
linger,  I  was  providentially  called  to  do  something  in  Lady 
Huntingdon's  plan;  but  being  shut  out  there,  it  appears  to 
me  I  am  again  called  to  my  first  work. 

"  Nevertheless,  I  would  not  leave  this  place  without  &  fuller 
persuasion  that  the  time  is  quite  come.  Not  that  God  uses  me 


36    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

much  now  among  my  parishioners,  but  because  I  have  not 
sufficiently  cleared  my  conscience  from  the  blood  of  all  men, 
especially  with  regard  to  ferreting  out  the  poor,  and  expostu- 
lating with  the  rich,  who  make  it  their  business  to  fly  from 
me.  In  the  meantime,  it  shall  be  my  employment  to  beg 
the  Lord  to  give  me  light,  to  guide  me  by  his  counsel,  and 
make  me  willing  to  go  anywhere  or  nowhere,  to  be  anything 
or  nothing. 

<ll  have  laid  my  pen  aside  for  some  time;  nevertheless 
resumed  it  last  week,  at  your  brother's  request  to  go  on  with 
my  treatise  on  Christian  Perfection.  I  have  made  some  al- 
teration in  the  sheets  you  have  seen,  and  hope  to  have  a  few 
more  ready  for  your  correction  against  the  time  you  come 
this  way. 

"How  deep  is  the  subject!  What  need  have  I  of  'the 
Spirit  to  search  the  deep  things  of  God!'  Help  me  by  your 
prayers,  till  you  can  help  me  by  word  of  mouth. 

"  Reverend  and  dear  sir,  your  willing  though  unprofi- 
table servant  in  the  gospel,  J.  FLETCHER."  l 

This  letter  was  not  a  positive  refusal.  While  he 
was  not  convinced  that  it  was  his  duty  at  the  present 
time,  he  nevertheless  took  the  matter  under  advise- 
ment, with  the  assurance  that  when  the  emergency 
was  reached  he  would  endeavor  to  do  his  part. 

Mr.  Moore,  in  his  "  Life  of  Wesley/'  asserts  that 
the  idea  of  having  Mr.  Fletcher  at  the  head  of  Meth- 
odism when  Mr.  Wesley  passed  away  did  not  origi- 
nate in  Mr.  Wesley's  thought,  but  with  the  preachers. 
He  says:  "The  wish  to  have  Mr.  Fletcher  at  their 
head,  in  case  of  Mr.  Wesley's  removal,  originated 
with  themselves.  They  pressed  Mr.  Wesley  to 
apply  to  him,  and  on  his  reporting  Mr.  Fletcher's  an- 
swer, they  were  so  encouraged  that  they  requested 

i  Rev.  Heury  Moore,  Life  of  Jolm  Wesley,  Amer.  Ed.  1825,  Vol.  II, 
pp.  217,  218. 


WESLEY'S  EARLY  PLANS.  37 

that  the  application  should  be  renewed.  Mr.  Wes- 
ley replied  in  his  usual  short  way:  'He  will  not 
come  out  unless  the  Lord  should  baptize  him  for  it.'"1 

It  is  plain  that  the  preachers  did  not  interpret  the 
reply  as  a  peremptory  negative,  but  it  is  equally 
plain  that  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  propose  to  press  Mr. 
Fletcher  faster  than  his  own  prayerful  judgment 
would  lead. 

Mr.  Fletcher  was  not  only  a  favorite  with  Mr. 
Wesley,  but  also  with  Wesley's  preachers.  Mr. 
Fletcher's  connection  with  Lady  Huntingdon's  Tre- 
vecca  College  led  him,  at  an  early  moment,  to  come 
to  the  defense  of  Mr.  Wesley  when  the  Conference 
Minutes  of  1770  were  objected  to  by  Lady  Hunting- 
don and  some  of  her  Calvinistic  friends.  The  Min- 
utes proclaimed  Wesleyan  Arminianism,  and  Fletcher 
wrote  his  "Vindication  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley's 
Last  Minutes."  In  this  pamphlet  of  ninety-eight 
pages,  which  was  published  in  1771,  the  author  fur- 
nishes a  fearful  description  of  the  Antinomianism  so 
prevalent  at  that  time.2 

Then  his  celebrated  "  Checks  to  Antinomianism  " 
followed  in  rapid  succession,  so  that,  by  the  end  of 
1772,  Fletcher  was  hailed,  wherever  the  controversy 
was  familiar,  as  the  champion  of  Wesleyan  Arminian- 
ism as  against  Calvinism.  Wesley,  too  busy  at  his 
time  of  life  to  take  the  leisure  for  such  writing,  com- 
mitted the  burden  to  the  younger  man,  and  the  Meth- 


1  Rev,  Henry  Moore,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Amer.  Ed.,  1825,  Vol.  II, 
p.  219. 

•L.  Tyerman,  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  100-102. 


38     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

odists  generally  looked  to  him  as  their  defender.  Hla 
polemical  ability,  as  well  as  his  sanctity,  caused  the 
preachers  to  look  toward  Fletcher  as  Wesley's  suc- 
cessor, and  hence  Wesley's  invitation. 

It  appears  that,  even  after  the  reception  of  Flet- 
cher's letter,  Wesley,  in  the  early  part  of  July  of  the 
same  year,  had  an  interview  with  Fletcher  at  Made- 
ley,  where  the  invitation  appears  to  have  been  re- 
newed, but  with  a  result  no  more  favorable.  On  re- 
turning to  London,  Mr.  Wesley  sent  Fletcher  the 
following  letter: 

"LEWISHAM,  July  21,  1773. 

"DEAR  SIR, — It. was  a  great  satisfaction  to  me  that  I  had 
the  opportunity,  which  I  so  long  desired,  of  spending  a  little 
time  with  you ;  and  I  really  think  it  would  answer  many  gra- 
cious designs  of  Providence  were  we  to  spend  a  little  more 
time  together.  It  might  be  of  great  advantage,  both  to  our- 
selves and  the  people,  who  may  otherwise  soon  be  as  sheep 
without  a  shepherd.  You  say,  indeed,  whenever  it  pleases 
God  to  call  me  away,  you  will  do  all  you  can  to  help  them. 
But  will  it  not  then  be  too  late  ?  You  may  then  expect  griev- 
ous wolves  to  break  in  on  every  side,  and  many  to  arise  from 
among  themselves  speaking  perverse  things.  Both  the  one 
and  the  other  stand  in  awe  of  me,  and  do  not  care  to  encounter 
me;  so  that  I  am  able,  whether  they  will  or  no,  to  deliver  the 
flock  into  your  hands.  But  no  one  else  is;  and  it  seems  that 
it  is  the  very  time  when  it  may  be  done  with  the  least  diffi- 
culty. Just  now  the  minds  of  the  people  in  general  are,  on 
account  of  the  'Checks,'  greatly  prejudiced  in  your  favor. 
Should  we  not  discern  the  providential  time?  Should  we  stay 
till  the  impression  is  worn  away  ?  Just  now  we  have  an  op- 
portunity of  breaking  the  ice — of  making  a  little  trial.  Mr. 
Richardson  is  desirous  of  making  an  exchange  with  you,  and 
spending  two  or  three  weeks  at  Madeley.  This  might  be  done 
either  now  or  in  October,  when  I  hope  to  return  from  Bristol ; 
and  until  something  of  this  kind  is  done  you  will  not  have 


WESLEY'S  EARLY  PLANS.  89 

that  aropyrt  [affection]  for  the  people  which  alone  can  make 
your  labor  light  in  spending  and  being  spent  for  them.  Me- 
ihinks  'tis  pity  we  should  lose  any  time;  for  what  a  vapor  is 
life! 

"  I  am,  dear  sir,  your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 

"JOHN  WESLEY."1 

How  tenderly  he  tries  to  induce  him  to  break  the 
ice  and  make  a  little  trial !  What  a  good  opportunity 
to  make  a  little  tour  when  another  clergyman  is  will- 
ing to  take  his  place  for  two  or  three  weeks !  What 
a  providential  period,  when  the  people  are  so  favor- 
ably impressed  by  his  polemical  productions!  So  he 
gently  suggests,  but  in  vain.  The  good  man  does  not 
feel  providentially  called  at  that  time. 

About  two  weeks  later,  on  the  3d  of  August,  the 
Conference  of  1773  commenced.  Wesley  had  failed 
to  secure  the  assent  of  Fletcher  to  his  proposition, 
yet  he  was  evidently  impressed  with  the  importance 
of  doing  something  to  insure  the  perpetuity  of  Meth- 
odism ;  so  we  find  Wesley  again  bringing  forward  the 
plan  first  presented  in  the  Conference  of  1769,  "  in 
order  to  lay  a  foundation  for  this  future  union."  The 
agreement  was  as  follows : 

"  We,  whose  names  are  underwritten,  being  thoroughly 
convinced  of  the  necessity  of  a  close  union  between  those 
whom  God  is  pleased  to  use  as  instruments  in  this  glorious 
work,  in  order  to  preserve  this  union  between  ourselves,  are 
resolved,  God  being  our  helper, 

"I.  To  devote  ourselves  entirely  to  God— denying  our- 
selves, taking  up  our  cross  daily,  steadily  aiming  at  one  thing, 
to  save  our  own  souls  and  them  that  hear  us. 

"  II.  To  preach  the  old  Methodist  doctrines,  and  no  other, 
contained  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Conferences. 


i  L.  Tyennan,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  ISO. 


40     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"  III.  To  observe  and  enforce  the  whole  Methodist  Dis- 
cipline, laid  down  in  the  said  Minutes." 

This  conferential  compact  had  been  signed  at  tlio 
Conference  of  1769,  and  now  it  is  once  more  signed 
by  the  forty-seven  preachers  who  were  present  at  the 
Conference  of  1773.1 

Whether  Wesley  renewed  this  agreement  because 
he  had  failed  to  obtain  the  consent  of  Fletcher  may  be 
an  open  question  in  the  minds  of  some;  but  he  pre- 
sented it  in  1769,  before  Fletcher  was  thought  of  either 
by  himself  or  his  preachers  for  the  position  of  president 
and  successor,  and  it  is  our  opinion  that,  even  if 
Fletcher  had  consented,  the  plan  would  have  been 
presented  for  the  purpose  of  binding  the  preachers 
together.  The  same  proposition  was  presented  and 
signed  in  the  Conferences  of  1774  and  1775.  This 
seems  to  indicate  a  deliberate  and  continued  purpose 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  Wesley.  Referring  to  the  out- 
lines of  a  plan  for  the  future  union  of  the  preachers, 
presented  in  1769,  Peirce,  in  his  work  on  the  Wesleyan 
Polity,  says:  "Having  left  these  propositions  with 
the  preachers,  that  they  might  consider  them  ma- 
turely, he  brought  them  forward  at  the  Conferences 
of  1773, 1774,  and  1775,  at  each  of  which  they  received 
the  signatures  of  all  the  preachers  present,  amounting 
in  number  to  one  hundred  and  one."  * 

There  is  another  allusion  to  Fletcher's  succeeding 


i  L.  Tyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  166, 157. 

•  William  Felice,  Eccleslatlcal  Principles  and  Polity  of  Wesleyan 
Methodists,  revised  by  Frederick  J.  Jobaon,  D.  D.,  London,  3d  Ed., 
p.  448. 


WESLEY'S  EARLY  FLANS.  41 

Mr.  Wesley,  which  should  be  recalled  before  we  pass 
from  this  subject.  In  the  beginning  of  the  year 
1776,  Mr.  Fletcher  had  so  far  recovered  from  a  severe 
illness  that  Mr.  Wesley,  thinking  easy  journeys 
would  benefit  him,  sent  him  an  invitation  to  accom- 
pany him  in  the  spring  on  some  of  his  official  tours 
among  the  societies.  In  his  answer  Mr.  Fletcher 
said: 

"I  received  last  night  the  favor  of  yours  from  Bristol. 
My  grand  desire  is  to  be  just  what  the  Lord  will  have  me  to 
be.  I  could,  if  you  wanted  a  traveling  assistant,  accompany 
you,  as  my  little  strength  would  admit,  in  some  of  your  ex- 
cursions. But  your  recommending  me  to  the  societies  as  one 
who  might  succeed  you,  should  the  Lord  take  you  hence  be- 
fore me,  is  a  step  to  which  I  could  by  no  means  consent.  It 
would  make  me  take  my  horse  and  gallop  away.  Besides, 
such  a  gtep  would,  at  this  juncture,  I  think,  be  peculiarly  im- 
proper. We  ought  to  give  as  little  hold  to  the  evil  surmisings 
and  rash  judgments  of  our  opponents  as  may  be.  What  has 
made  me  glut  our  friends  with  my  books  is  not  any  love  to 
such  publications,  but  a  desire  to  make  an  end  of  the  contro- 
versy. It  is  probable  that  my  design  has  miscarried,  and  that 
I  have  disgusted  rather  than  convinced  the  people."1 

No  doubt  Mr.  Wesley  gave  up  the  idea  very  re- 
luctantly, for  he  had  a  lofty  opinion  as  to  Mr. 
Fletcher's  capabilities.  Of  him  he  declared: 

"  I  can  never  believe  it  was  the  will  of  God  that  such  a 
burning  and  shining  light  should  be  hid  under  a  bushel.  No  ; 
instead  of  being  confined  to  a  country  village,  it  ought  to  have 
shone  in  every  corner  of  our  land.  He  was  full  as  much 
called  to  sound  an  alarm  through  all  the  nation  as  Mr.  White- 
field  himself;  nay,  abundantly  more  so,  set-ing  he  was  far 
better  qualified  for  that  important  work.  He  had  a  far  more 


i  Rev.  Henry  Moore,  Life  ot  John  Wesley,  Amer.  Ed.,  1825,  Vol.  II, 
p.  223. 


42     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

striking  person,  equal  good  breeding,  an  equally  winning  ad- 
dress, together  with  a  richer  flow  of  fancy,  a  stronger  under- 
standing, a  far  greater  treasure  of  learning,  both  in  languages, 
philosophy,  philology,  and  divinity ;  and,  above  all,  a  more 
deep  and  constant  communion  with  the  Father,  and  with  the 
Son,  Jesus  Christ." ' 

Whether  it  was  Mr.  Wesley's  intention  to  trans- 
mit to  Mr.  Fletcher  the  precise  form  and  quantity 
of  governmental  authority  which  he  possessed  and 
used,  may  be  considered  an  open  question. 

If  he  did  so  intend,  his  purpose  was  defeated, 
first,  by  Mr.  Fletcher's  declination;  and  secondly,  by 
Mr.  Fletcher's  decease ;  for  he  died  before  Mr  Wesley. 

It  may  be  that,  though  he  desired  Mr.  Fletcher 
to  be  chief,  at  the  same  time  he  intended  that  the 
latter  should  act  conjointly  with  the  Conference;  for 
his  proposition  of  1769  suggested  that  the  Confer- 
ence should  elect  a  small  committee  to  do  what  he 
had  done.  Under  this,  the  Conference  could  have 
elected  Mr.  Fletcher  as  one  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Wesley  may  have  meant  more ;  but  if  he  did, 
his  purpose  had  come  to  naught.  Whatever  may 
have  been  his  intentions  in  regard  to  this  particular 
matter,  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  plan  which  he  had 
matured. 

By  the  acts  of  1769,  1773,  1774,  and  1775,  he  had 
provided  in  a  systematic  manner,  not  only  for  the 
perpetuity  of  the  Methodist  organization  and  the  con- 
tinuance of  its  doctrines  and  economy,  but  he  had 
further  provided  in  particular  that  which  was  entirely 

» Wesley's  Works,  Eng.  Ed.,  Vol.  XI,  p.  288;  L.  Tyermau,  Life  o.' 
John  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  150. 


WESLEY'S  EARLY  PLANS.  43 

new  in  Methodism ;  namely,  that  the  centralized  per- 
sonal government  which  he  had  exerted  should  cease 
to  exist  with  his  death,  and  that  the  governmental 
power  he  had  used  should  be  vested  in  the  body  of 
preachers  called  the  Conference. 

John  Wesley  was  now  in  his  seventy-third  year, 
and  there  was  a  possibility,  or  even  a  probability,  of  his 
speedy  departure;  but  with  the  preachers  pledged  to 
stand  together  and  be  true  to  Methodist  doctrine  and 
discipline,  and  with  the  governing  power  lodged  in 
the  Conference,  the  members  of  which  body  had  been 
trained  under  Wesley,  there  was  reason  to  believe 
that  under  the  above  arrangement  the  work  of  Meth- 
odism might  be  carried  forward,  both  smoothly  and 
successfully. 


CHAPTER  III. 

MR.  WESLEY'S  FINAL  PLAN  FOR  PERPETUATING 
AND  EMPOWERING  THE  CONFERENCE. 

A  FEW  years  after  the  plan  presented  in  1769, 
and  renewed  in  later  years,  had  been  generally 
accepted  by  the  preachers,  a  grave  difficulty  presented 
itself.  This  difficulty  was  of  a  legal  character,  and 
grew  out  of  questions  in  relation  to  the  title  to  the 
chapel  property.  Indeed,  in  some  form,  it  had  ex- 
isted from  an  early  day. 

The  first  Methodist  preaching-house  was  built  at 
Bristol,  in  1739,  and  Mr.  Wesley  promptly  settled  the 
property  on  eleven  feoffees.  At  once  the  Rev.  George 
Whitefield  and  others  objected,  because  this  form  of 
settlement  gave  those  who  held  the  property  such 
complete  control  of  it  that  they  could  say  who  should 
and  who  should  not  officiate  on  the  premises,  and 
thus  had  power  at  any  time  to  exclude  Mr.  Wesley 
himself.1 

Mr.  Wesley  remarks: 

"  I  had  not  at  first  the  least  apprehension  or  design  of 
being  personally  engaged  either  in  the  expense  of  this  work 
or  in  the  direction  of  it,  having  appointed  eleven  feoffees,  on 
whom  I  supposed  these  burdens  would  fall,  of  course.  But  I 
quickly  found  my  mistake — first,  with  regard  to  the  expense; 
for  the  whole  undertaking  must  have  stood  still  had  not  I  iiu- 


i  Peirce'x  Wesleyan  Polity,  3d  Kd.,  p.  591 ;  L.  Tyermau's  Life  of  John 
Wesley,  Vol.  I,  p.  270. 
44 


WESLEY'S  FINAL  PLAN.  45 

mediately  taken  upon  myself  the  payment  of  all  the  work- 
men, so  that,  before  I  knew  where  I  was,  I  had,  contracted  a 
debt  of  more  than  a  hundred  and  fifty  pounds ;  and  this  I  was 
to  discharge  how  I  could,  the  subscriptions  of  both  societies 
not  amounting  to  one-quarter  of  the  sum.  And  as  to  the  di- 
rection of  the  work,  I  presently  received  letters  from  my 
friends  in  London,  Mr.  Whitefield  in  particular,  backed  with 
a  message  by  one  just  come  from  thence,  that  neither  he  nor 
they  would  have  anything  to  do  with  the  building,  neither 
contribute  anything  towards  it,  unless  I  would  instantlv  dis- 
charge all  feoffees  and  do  everything  in  my  own  name.  Many 
reasons  they  gave  for  this;  but  one  was  enough,  viz. :  'That 
such  feoffees  would  always  have  it  in  their  power  to  control 
me,  and  if  I  preached  not  as  they  liked,  to  turn  me  out  of  the 
room  that  I  had  built.'  I  accordingly  yielded  to  their  advice, 
and,  calling  all  the  feoffees  together,  canceled  (no  man  opposing) 
the  instruments  made  before,  and  took  the  whole  management 
into  my  own  hands.  Money,  it  is  true,  I  had  not,  nor  any 
human  prospect  or  probability  of  procuring  it.  But  I  knew 
'the  earth  is  the  Lord's,  and  the  fullness  thereof,'  and  in  b» 
name  set  out,  nothing  doubting." l 

Again,  Mr.  Wesley  says  at  another  time : 

"I  built  the  first  Methodist  preaching-house,  so  called,  at 
Bristol,  in  the  year  1739;  and,  knowing  no  better,  I  suffered 
the  deed  of  trust  to  be  drawn  up  in  the  Presbyterian  form. 
But  Mr.  Whitefield,  hearing  of  it,  wrote  me  a  warm  letter, 
asking:  'Do  you  consider  what  you  do?  If  the  trustees  are 
lo  name  the  preachers,  they  may  exclude  even  you  from 
preaching  in  the  house  you  have  built.  Pray  let  this  deed  be 
immediately  canceled.'  To  this  the  trustees  readily  agreed. 
Afterward  I  built  the  preaching-houses  in  Kingswood  and  at 
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.  But  none  beside  myself  had  any  right 
to  appoint  the  preachers  in  them."  * 

In  the  early  part  of  his  career,  nearly  all  the 
chapels  were  vested  in  Mr.  Wesley  himself — a  matter 
involving  serious  responsibility  while  he  lived,  but 

»  Rev.  Hemy  Mooiv's  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  I,  p.  363. 
•  Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  VoL  VII,  pp.  828,  827. 


46     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

apt  to  create  grave  complications  at  his  death.  To 
this  his  attention  was  called,  and  he  observes:  "As 
the  houses  at  Bristol,  Kingswood,  and  Newcastle 
were  my  property,  a  friend  reminded  me  that  they 
were  all  liable  to  descend  to  my  heirs.  ...  I  was 
struck,  and  immediately  procured  a  form  to  be  drawn 
up  by  three  of  the  most  eminent  counselors  in  Lon- 
don, whereby  not  only  these  houses,  but  all  the  Meth- 
odist houses  hereafter  to  be  built,  might  be  settled  on 
such  a  plan  as  would  secure  them,  so  far  as  human 
prudence  could,  from  the  heirs  of  the  proprietors  for 
the  purpose  originally  intended." l 

In  his  Journal,  May  23,  1746,  he  says :  "  I  made 
over  the  houses  in  Bristol  and  Kingswood,  and  the 
next  week  that  at  Newcastle,  to  seven  trustees,  reserv- 
ing only  to  my  brother  and  myself  the  liberty  of  preach- 
ing and  lodging  there."  Again,  on  March  19,  1747, 
he  makes  this  entry:  "I  considered,  'What  would  I 
do  now,  if  I  was  sure  I  had  but  two  days  to  live?' 
All  outward  things  are  settled  to  my  wish.  The 
houses  at  Bristol,  Kingswood,  and  Newcastle  are  safe ; 
the  deeds  whereby  they  are  conveyed  to  the  trustees 
took  place  on  the  5th  instant;  my  will  is  made.  What 
have  I  more  to  do  but  to  commend  my  soul  to  my 
merciful  and  faithful  Creator?" 

Some  years  afterward,  Mr.  Wesley  obtained  and 
published  a  model  form  of  a  trust  deed  for  the  settle- 
ment of  the  chapels,  to  the  effect  that  the  trustees, 
for  the  time  being,  should  permit  Mr.  Weslev,  and 
such  other  persons  as  he  might  from  time  to  time  ap- 

>  Wesley's  Worlcs,  Amer.  Ed..  Vol.  VII.  p.  327. 


WESLEY'S  FINAL  PLAN.  47 

point,  to  have  the  free  use  of  such  premises,  to  preach 
»nd  expound  God's  Holy  Word  therein.  In  case  of 
his  death  the  same  right  was  reserved  for  his  brother 
Charles,  if  he  survived;  and,  providing  that  if  both 
the  Wesleys  had  deceased,  the  same  prerogatives 
were  to  belong  to  the  Rev.  William  Grimshaw,  a 
Cambridge  graduate,  who  had  been  regularly  ordained 
in  the  Church  of  England,  and  in  1742  was  ap- 
pointed to  the  perpetual  curacy  of  Haworth,  in 
Yorkshire,  but  in  1745  had  entered  into  a  close 
union  with  the  Methodists,  and  acted  as  Mr.  Wesley's 
assistant  in  what  was  known  as  the  Haworth  Cir- 
cuit.1 The  trust  deed  also  recited  that,  after  the 
death  of  John  and  Charles  Wesley  and  William 
Grimshaw,  the  chapels  were  to  be  held  in  trust  for 
the  sole  use  of  such  persons  as  might  be  appointed 
at  "  The  Yearly  Conference  of  the  People  called  Meth- 
odists ;"  provided,  that  the  said  persons  preached  and 
expounded  God's  Holy  Word  therein  according  to 
the  doctrines  contained  in  Mr.  Wesley's  Notes  on 
the  New  Testament,  and  his  four  volumes  of  ser- 
mons, and  no  others.3 

Having  published  this  model  deed,  Mr.  Wesley 
then  gave  directions  that  "  no  chapels  or  preaching- 
rooms  should  be  undertaken  without  the  consent  of 
the  assistant,  and  in  every  case  to  be  settled  in  the 
manner  described  in  the  said  deed."3 


»Mr.  Grimshaw  died  In  1763. 

«L.  Tyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  II,  pp.  478,479;  Vol.  Ill, 
p.  417  ;  Pelrce's  Wesleyan  Polity, 3d  Ed.,  p.  592 ;  Minutes  of  Several  Con- 
versations, 1763,  12mo,  30  pages,  pp.  25-27. 

*  Mlnutea  1763,  Vol.  I,  p.  604 ;  Pelrce's  Wesleyan  Polity,  3d  Ed.,  p.  692. 


48     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

In  1765  it  was  reported  that  some  of  the  chapels 
had  not  been  legally  settled,  and  that  in  some  places 
trustees  had  died  and  the  vacancies  had  not  been 
filled.1  To  remedy  this,  the  following  order  was 
taken:  "Let  a  person  be  sent  through  England  to 
survey  the  deeds  and  supply  the  trustees  wanting."2 

It  will  be  observed  that  all  this  antedates  the 
plan  proposed  in  1769  for  perpetuating  Methodist 
doctrine,  Methodist  economy,  Methodist  discipline, 
and  the  Methodist  Conference ;  but  in  a  large  sense  it 
anticipates  and  involves  the  other,  for  it  looks  for- 
ward to  the  Conference  as  the  successor  of  the 
Wesleys  and  Grimshaw;  conveys  the  use  of  the 
chapel  property  for  the  use  of  the  Conference  through 
those  appointed  at  the  Conference,  provided  they 
preach  Wesleyan  doctrines.  Thus  the  tendency 
through  the  property  rights  involved  was  to  hold 
people  and  preachers  together,  and  continue  the  Con- 
ference with  impliedly  the  same  rights  and  powers 
in  all  respects  as  had  been  used  by  John  Wesley 
himself. 

Tyerman  tells  us  that  "  Mr.  Pawson,  in  his  manu- 
script memoir  of  Dr.  Whitehead,  states  that,  from 
the  year  1750,  all  Methodist  chapels  were  settled  ac- 
cording to  the  provisions  of  the  model  deed  that  has 
been  already  mentioned ;  but  several  of  the  l  wisest 
and  best  preachers'  were  not  satisfied,  and  from  time 
to  time  brought  up  the  matter  at  the  yearly  Confer- 
ences, and  earnestly  urged  Wesley  to  do  something 


i  Peii-re's  Wesleyan  Polity,  3d  Ed.,  p.  592;  and  Minutes. 
•  Minutes,  1765,  Vol.  I,  p.  60. 


WESLEY'S  FINAL  PLAN.  49 

more  to  preserve  the  chapels  for  the  purpose  which  the 
original  builders  intended."1 

Hence,  in  1767,  the  inquiry  was  made: 

"Are  our  preaching-houses  settled  in  our  form 
safe?  Should  we  not  have  the  opinion  of  a  counsel?" 

After  mature  deliberation,  Mr.  Wesley,  in  his  char- 
acteristic style,  thus  replied: 

"I  think  not.  1.  Because  the  form  was  drawn 
up  by  three  eminent  counselors.  But,  2.  It  is  the 
way  of  every  counsel  to  blame  what  another  counsel 
has  done;  but  you  can  not  at  all  infer  that  they  think 
it  wrong  because  they  say  so.  3.  If  they  did  in 
reality  think  it  wrong,  that  would  not  prove  that  it 
was  so.  4.  If  there  was  (which  I  do  not  believe) 
some  defect  therein,  who  would  go  to  law  with  the 
body  of  Methodists?  5.  And  if  they  did,  would 
any  court  in  England  put  them  out  of  possession, 
especially  when  the  intent  of  the  deed  is  plain  and 
undeniable?"2 

Tyerman  observes  that  "  such  reasoning  failed  to 
satisfy  the  preachers,  especially  Messrs.  Hampson  and 
Oddie,  both  of  whom,  says  Pawson,  '  were  men  of 
remarkably  deep  understanding  and  sound  judg- 
ment/"3 And  yet  there  is  not  a  little  good  sense  in 
Wesley's  logic. 

Wesley,  however,  was  influenced  by  the  pressure 
which  had  been  brought  to  bear  on  him,  and  vari- 
ous expedients  were  suggested  and  resorted  to  for 

»L.  Tyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  420. 
« Minutes,  1767,  Vol.  I,  p.  73;  Pelrce,  Wesleyan  Polity,  8d  Ed.,  p.  603 • 
L.  Tyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  420. 
•  L.  Tyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  420. 


60     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

the  purpose  of  making  the  hold  upon  the  property 
more  secure.1 

Before  this  question  was  settled,  Mr.  Wesley  re- 
ceived an  important  addition  to  his  corps  of  minis- 
ters in  the  person  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.  D., 
a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England.  Dr.  Coke 
was  a  gentleman  of  wealth,  and  a  graduate  of  Oxford 
University.  At  the  age  of  twenty-one  he  had  been 
chosen  common  councilman  for  the  borough  of 
Brecon;  at  the  age  of  twenty-five  he  had  been 
elected  chief  magistrate;  and  on  June  17,  1775, 
when  less  than  twenty-eight  years  of  age,  he  had  re- 
ceived from  Oxford  University  the  degree  of  Doctor 
of  Civil  Law. 

This  remarkable  young  man  was  only  about  thirty 
when,  in  1777,  he  associated  himself  with  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, and  from  him  received  an  appointment  as  a 
Methodist  minister.  His  name,  however,  for  some 
unknown  reason,  did  not  appear  in  the  Minutes  until 
1778.2 

Wesley  quickly  perceived  the  value  of  this  new 
acquisition,  and  in  1780  appointed  Dr.  Coke  to  super- 
intend the  affairs  of  the  London  Circuit,  and  be- 
stowed on  him  various  proofs  of  his  great  confidence. 
Among  others,  Wesley  "determined  that  in  Ireland 
he  should  visit  the  societies  alternately  with  himself, 
thus  making  between  them  in  that  kingdom  an  annual 
visit."8 


iTyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  420, 421 ;  Pelrce,  We»- 
leyan  Polity,  3d  Ed.,  p.  593;  Minutes,  1768, 1775. 

» Samuel  Drew,  Life  of  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.  D.,  Amer.  Ed.,  p.  40 
•Samuel  Drew,  Life  of  Dr.  Coke.  Arner.  Ed.,  p.  42. 


WESLEY'S  FINAL  PLAN.  51 

Dr.  Coke's  education,  social  training,  and  natural 
ability  prepared  him  for  the  position  of  a  leader.  He 
was  soon  recognized  as  a  positive  force  in  the  Method- 
ist movement.  Wesley  intrusted  him  with  matters  of 
great  moment;  and  he  soon  took  an  active  interest  in 
the  chapel  question,  which  appeared  to  be  steadily 
gaining  greater  momentum. 

In  1782  a  local  difficulty,  involving  the  power  of 
appointing  preachers  to  a  certain  chapel,  culminated, 
reopened  the  whole  question,  and  tended  to  produce  a 
state  of  general  disorganization.  It  had  reference  to 
the  chapel  at  Birstal,  Yorkshire.  Mr.  Wesley  states 
that— 

"A  preaching-house  was  built  at  Birstal  by  contributions 
and  collections.1  And  John  Nelson,  knowing  no  better,  suf- 
fered a  deed  to  be  drawn  in  the  Presbyterian  form,  giving 
twelve  Or  thirteen  persons  power  not  only  of  placing  but 
even  of  displacing  the  preachers  at  their  pleasure.  Had  Mr. 
Whitefield  or  I  known  this,  we  should  have  insisted  on  its 
either  being  canceled,  like  that  at  Bristol,  or  so  altered  as  to 
insure  the  application  of  the  house  to  the  purpose  for  which 
it  was  built  without  giving  so  dangerous  a  power  to  any 
trustees  whatever.  ...  In  process  of  time  the  preaching- 
house  at  Birstal  became  abundantly  too  small  for  the  congre- 
gation. It  was  then  proposed  to  build  a  new  one.  And  a  new 
deed  was  prepared,  which,  like  the  old,  gave  a  few  persons  the 
power  of  placing  and  displacing  the  preachers  at  their  pleas- 
ure. This  was  brought  and  read  to  me  at  Daw  Green.  As 
soon  as  ever  I  heard  it,  I  vehemently  objected  to  it,  and  posi- 
tively refused  to  sign  it.  I  now  thought  I  had  done  with  it, 
but  in  the  evening  several  persons  came  again,  and  importu- 
nately urged  me  to  sign  it ;  averring  that  it  was  the  same  in 
effect  with  the  old  deed,  and  the  old  deed  could  not  be 


>It  wus  built  about  175L    (Tyerman,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  873.) 


52     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

altered.    Not  adverting  that  it  was  altered  in  the  new  one,  I  at 
length  unwillingly  complied. 

"  But  observe :  whether  I  did  right  or  wrong  herein,  or  in 
any  other  instance,  it  does  not  affect  the  merits  of  the  cause. 
The  dwelling  upon  this  is  mere  finesse,  to  divert  us  from  the 
one  question,  'Is  that  deed  right  or  wrong?'  These  things 
were  mentioned  at  the  ensuing  Conference  [1782],  and  it  was 
asked,  '  What  can  be  done?"1 

Peirce,  in  his  "  Polity  of  the  Wesleyan  Methodists," 
remarks  that,  in  the  year  1782  the  trustees  of  the 
chapel  at  Birstal,  in  Yorkshire,  manifested  a  want  of 
confidence  in  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  Conference,  and 
they  desired  to  choose  preachers  in  connection  with 
the  body,  but  were  not  willing  to  submit  to  the  ap- 
pointment made  by  the  Conference.  In  this  demand 
they  were  the  more  positive  as  the  settlement  of  their 
chapel  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  Methodist  plan.2 
The  inquiry,  therefore,  was  made  in  the  Conference  of 
that  year:  *  What  can  be  done  in  regard  to  the  preach- 
ing-house at  Birstal?"3 

The  answer  given  at  the  Conference  was  short 
sharp,  and  decisive.  The  reply  was :  "  If  the  trustees 
still  refuse  to  settle  it  on  the  Methodist  plan  ;  if  they 
still  insist  that  they  will  have  the  right  of  placing 
and  displacing  the  preachers  at  their  pleasure, — then, 
First,  let  a  plain  statement  of  the  case  be  drawn 
up.  Secondly,  let  a  collection  be  made  throughout 
all  England  in  order  to  purchase  ground,  and 


» Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  The  Case  of  the  Birstal  House,  Vol. 
VII,  p.  827. 

'Myles,  Chronological  History  of  the  Methodists,  p.  10. 
•Peiroe,  Polity  of  Wesleyan  Methodists,  3d  Ed.,  p.  694. 


WESLEY'S  FINAL  PLAN.  53 

build  another  preaching-house  as  near  the  present  as 
may  be."1 

The  original  Birstal  deed  was  quite  a  curiosity  in 
its  way.  It  gave  the  two  Wesleys  in  succession,  and 
then  to  Grimshaw,  the  right  of  occupying  the  pulpit ; 
but  after  the  decease  of  these  three  ministers  the  trus- 
tees were  to  elect  their  own  preachers  monthly ;  and 
all  such  preachers,  so  long  as  they  continued  in  this 
office,  were  to  preach  in  the  chapel  twice  every  Sun- 
day, every  Christmas-day,  New  Year's-day,  and  Good 
Friday,  and  also  every  Thursday  night,  as  had  been 
up  to  1751,  "usual  and  customary  to  be  done."2 

The  new  deed  of  1782  gave  the  right  of  appoint- 
ment to  John  and  Charles  Wesley  during  their 
life-time;  but  after  their  death  the  appointment  t)f 
preachers  was  to  be  made  by  the  trustees  and  certain 
persons  who  had  been  class-leaders  for  three  years,  and 
the  preachers  so  selected  were  to  hold  said  premises 
and  exercise  the  function  of  a  preacher  only  during 
the  good- will  and  pleasure  of  the  major  part  of  the 
aforesaid  trustees  and  class-leaders.8 

The  latter  deed  was  widely  different  from  the  for- 
mer, and,  as  the  vice-chancellor  ruled  in  1854,  so  far 
as  it  purported  to  vary  the  trusts  of  the  deed  of  1751, 
it  was  void  and  of  no  effect.4 

Wesley  doubtless  saw  he  had  been  worried  into  a 

» Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  Vol.  VII,  p.  327;  Minutes  1782,  Vol.  I, 
p.  157;  Peirce,  Wesleyan  Polity,  p.  594. 

•  Tyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  873. 

•Tyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill  p.  374. 

<  Methodist  Magazine,  1854,  p.  184;  Tyerman,  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol. 
Ill,  p.  S75. 


64    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

mistake  in  signing  the  deed,  which  he  did  May  14, 
1782;  but,  though  almost  seventy-nine  years  old,  he 
was  acute  enough  to  see  that  it  was  still  necessary 
for  his  brother  Charles  to  join  in  the  conveyance;  so 
on  the  28th  of  May,  1782,  he  wrote  to  his  brother, 
suggesting  that  he  write  assuring  the  parties  that  he 
would  sign  if  the  chapel  were  settled  on  the  Meth- 
odist plan,  but  not  otherwise.  Charles  acted  on 
his  brother's  suggestion,  refusing  to  sign  the  deed. 

Mr.  Wesley  was  determined  to  maintain  discipline, 
and  on  June  18,  1782,  he  addressed  Mr.  Valton,  one 
of  the  Birstal  preachers,  the  following  note : 

"  MY  DEAR  BROTHER, — I  can  not  allow  J S to  be 

any  longer  a  leader ;  and  if  he  will  lead  the  class  whether  I  will 
or -no,  I  require  you  to  put  him  out  of  our  society.  If  twenty  of 
his  class  will  leave  the  society  too,  they  must.  The  first  loss 
is  the  best.  Better  forty  members  should  be  lost  than  our 
discipline  be  lost.  TJiey  are  no  Methodists  that  vriU  bear  no  re- 
straints. Explain  this  at  large  to  the  society."  * 

Thus  the  affair  stood  when  the  Conference  met  in 
August,  1782,  when  the  Conference  took  the  action 
already  mentioned.  At  the  same  Conference  Dr. 
Coke  was  appointed  to  visit  the  societies  throughout 
England,  so  far  as  necessary,  in  order  to  have  all  the 
preaching-houses  settled  on  the  Conference  plan,  and 
the  respective  assistants  were  requested  to  give  him 
all  the  support  in  their  power.2 

Dr.  Coke  very  promptly  took  up  the  Birstal 
case.  He  wrote  to  on«  of  the  trustees,  and  shortly 

i  Methodist  Magazine,  1824,  p.  307;  Tyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley 
Vo\.  Ill,  p.  383. 

•  Feirce,  Wesley  an  Polity,  3d  Ed.  p.  594. 


WESLEY'S  FINAL  PLAN.  55 

after  published  a  12mo  tract  of  twelve  pages,  en- 
titled "An  Address  to  the  Inhabitants  of  Birstal 
and  the  Adjacent  Villages,"  in  which  he  relates 
how  the  attorney  of  the  trustees  secured  Wesley's 
signature  to  the  deed,  tells  that  the  "  amazing  deed  " 
had  been  discussed  and  had  created  alarm  in  the  re- 
cent Conference,  and  that  he  had  been  delegated  to 
carry  into  execution  the  minute  which  had  been  passed.1 

The  idea  of  housing  the  Birstal  society  in  a  new 
chapel  to  be  built  close  to  the  other,  and  leaving  the 
trustees  with  an  empty  building,  was  unique  and  he- 
roic; but  Mr.  Wesley  was  determined.  So  he  writes 
to  Samuel  Bradburn,  then  stationed  at  Bradford: 
"  Birstal  is  a  leading  case,  the  first  of  an  avowed  vio- 
lation of  our  plan.  Therefore  the  point  must  be  car- 
ried for  the  Methodist  preachers  now  or  never;  and 
I  alone  can  carry  it, — which  I  will,  God  being  my 
helper."2 

Wesley  in  his  paper  on  "The  Case  of  Birstal 
House,"  issued  January  3,  1783,  argues  with  great  ve- 
hemence against  such  a  deed  and  against  such  power 
in  trustees.  Thus  he  says: 

"Because,  whenever  the  trustees  exert  their  power  of 
'  placing  and  displacing  preachers,'  then, — 

"  1.  Itinerant  preaching  is  no  more.  When  the  trustees  in 
any  place  have  found  and  fixed  a  preacher  they  like,  the  ro- 
tation of  preachers  is  at  an  end  ;  at  least,  till  they  are  tired  of 
their  favorite  preacher,  and  so  turn  him  out. 

"  2.  While  he  stays,  is  not  the  bridle  in  his  mouth  ?  How 
dares  he  speak  the  full  and  the  whole  truth,  since,  whenever 


*Tyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley.  Vol.  Ill,  p.  879. 
«  Wesley's  Works,  Eng.  Ed.,  Vol.  XII,  p.  138. 


56     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

he  displeases  the  trustees,  he  is  liable  to  lose  his  bread  ?  How 
much  less  will  he  dare  to  put  a  trustee,  though  ever  so  un- 
godly, out  of  the  society  1  ... 

"  4.  The  power  of  the  trustees  is  greater  than  that  of  any 
nobleman ;  yea,  or  of  the  king  himself.  Where  he  is  patron  he  can 
put  in  a  preacher,  but  he  can  not  put  him  out.  ...  I  am 
not  pleading  my  own  cause.  ...  I  am  pleading  for  Mr. 
Taylor,  Mr.  Bradburn,  Mr.  Benson,  and  for  every  other  travel- 
ing preacher,  that  you  may  be  as  free,  after  I  am  gone  hence, 
as  you  are  now  I  ana  at  your  head ;  that  you  may  never  be 
liable  to  be  turned  out  of  any  or  all  of  our  houses  without  any 
reason  given,  but  that  so  is  the  pleasure  of  twenty  or  thirty 
men.  .  .  . 

"  I  insist  upon  that  point,  and  let  everything  else  go.  No 
Methodist  trustees,  if  I  can  help  it,  shall,  after  my  death,  any 
more  than  while  I  live,  have  the  power  of  placing  and  displac- 
ing the  preachers."  l 

Dr.  Coke  went  so  far  as  to  purchase  a  piece  of 
ground  on  which  to  erect  a  new  and  properly  deeded 
chapel ;  but  after  considerable  parleying,  a  compromise 
was  made,  and  the  matter  amicably  adjusted,  the  trus- 
tees executing  a  new  deed,  which  gave  the  Conference 
power  to  appoint  the  preachers.2 

The  discussion  and  the  result  probably  had  a  salu- 
tary effect  in  preserving  uniformity;  but  the  other 
question — namely,  the  title  of  the  Conference  to  the 
use  of  the  chapels  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley — con- 
tinued to  give  the  preachers  great  uneasiness. 

"  They  were  safe  during  his  life,  as  the  various 
deeds  specified  that  he,  by  name,  should  appoint  the 
preachers  from  time  to  time.  The  generality  of  those 
deeds  specified  also,  that,  after  his  death,  the  Confer- 


>  Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  Ed  ,  Vol.  VII,  p.  328. 

•See  Tyerman's  Wesley,  pp.  373-382 ;  Pelrce's  Wesleyan  Polity,  p.  69-L 


WESLEY'S  FINAL  PLAN.  57 

ence  of  the  people  called  Methodists  should  appoint 
preachers  in  like  manner.  Some  of  the  deeds  had  no 
reference  to  any  posthumous  appointment,  and  so 
would  have  been  completely  in  the  power  of  the 
trustees  at  Mr.  Wesley's  decease.  Several,  even,  of 
those  trustees  where  the  chapels  were  settled  according 
to  the  Methodist  plan  did  not  scruple  to  say  'that 
the  Conference  was  not  an  assembly  that  the  law 
would  recognize,  and  that,  therefore,  they  would,  after 
Mr.  Wesley's  death,  appoint  whom  they  should  think 
proper.'  One  of  these  said  to  me,  *  They  might  ap- 
point a  popish  priest  if  they  should  think  it  proper.'" l 

Dr.  Coke,  as  well  as  others,  soon  saw  that  what 
was  needed  was  a  legal  description  or  definition  of  the 
phrase,  "  The  Conference  of  the  people  called  Meth- 
odists," which  appeared  in  the  regularly  drawn  deeds. 
Without  a  legal  definition  of  the  term  Conference, 
made  before  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley,  his  decease 
would  throw  British  Methodism  into  a  chaotic  con- 
dition. Wesley  was  almost  eighty,  and  no  time 
should  be  lost. 

Dr.  Coke  thus  tells  the  story  of  the  effort  which 
immediately  grew  out  of  the  excitement  of  1782 : 

"In  the  Conference  held  in  the  year  1782  several  com- 
plaints were  made  in  respect  to  the  danger  in  which  we  were 
situated  from  the  want  of  specifying,  in  distinct  and  legal 
terms,  what  was  meant  by  the  term,  '  The  Conference  of  the 
people  called  Methodists.'  Indeed,  the  preachers  seemed  uni- 
versally alarmed,  and  many  expressed  their  fears  that  divisions 
would  take  place  among  us  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley  on 


>  Rev.    Henry  Moore,   Life  of  John   Wesley,  Amer.   Ed.,  Vol.  II, 
p.  218. 

5 


58     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

this  account ;  and  the  whole  body  of  preachers  present  seemed 
to  wish  that  some  methods  might  be  taken  to  remove  this 
danger,  which  appeared  to  be  pregnant  with  evils  of  the  first 
magnitude. 

"  In  consequence  of  this  (the  subject  lying  heavy  on  my 
heart),  I  desired  Mr.  Clulow,  of  Chancery  Lane,  London,  to 
draw  up  such  a  case  as  I  judged  sufficient,  and  then  to  present 
it  to  that  very  eminent  counselor,  Mr.  Maddocks,  for  his 
opinion.  This  was  accordingly  done,  and  Mr.  Maddocks  in- 
formed us,  in  his  answer,  that  the  deeds  of  our  preaching- 
houses  were  in  the  situation  we  dreaded ;  that  the  law  would 
not  recognize  the  Conference  in  the  state  in  which  it  stood  at 
that  time,  and,  consequently,  that  there  was  no  central  point 
which  might  preserve  the  connection  from  splitting  into 
a  thousand  pieces  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley.  To  prevent 
this,  he  observed  that  Mr.  Wesley  should  enroll  a  deed  in 
chancery,  which  deed  should  specifj'  the  persons  by  name  who 
composed  the  Conference,  together  with  the  mode  of  succes- 
sion for  its  perpetuity  ;  and  at  the  same  time  such  regulations 
be  established  by  the  deed  as  Mr.  Wesley  would  wish  the  Con- 
ference should  be  governed  by,  after  his  death. 

"This  opinion  of  Mr.  Maddocks  I  read  in  the  Conference 
of  1783.  The  whole  Conference  seemed  grateful  to  me  for  pro- 
curing the  opinion,  and  expressed  their  wishes  that  such  a 
deed  might  be  drawn  up  and  executed  by  Mr.  Wesley  as 
should  agree  with  the  advice  of  that  great  lawyer,  as  soon  as 
possible." l 

The  following  is  the  case  submitted  to  the  bar- 
rister, Mr.  Maddocks,  and  his  opinion  upon  it : 

"  Your  opinion  is  requested. 

"  Will  the  general  description  in  the  '  Deeds  of  the  yearly 
Conferences  of  the  People  called  Methodists,  in  London,'  etc., 
together  with  the  constant  usage  before  mentioned,  be  suffi- 
cient marks  of  identity,  personal  and  legal  description,  of  the 
very  persons  who  actually  do  compose  the  Conference,  as  to 
carry  the  exercise  of  the  trust  fully  into  them,  and  safely 
through  them  into  their  appointees,  so  effectually  as  to  enable 


i  Drew's  Life  of  Coke,  Amer.  Ed.,  pp.  47, 48. 


WESLEY'S  FINAL  PLAN.  59 

such  appointees  to  maintain  and  enforce  their  right  to  the 
benefit  of  the  trusts  in  case  of  resistance  on  the  part  of  the 
trustees,  or  any  other  persons?  If  not,  what  means  would  you 
advise  to  be  taken  for  the  aforesaid  purposes? 

"  Answer : 

"  As  to  the  means  of  fixing  the  sense  of  the  word  Confer- 
ence, and  defining  what  persons  are  to  be  members  of  the  Con- 
ference, and  how  the  body  is  to  be  continued  hi  succession, 
and  to  identify  it,  I  think  Mr.  John  Wesley  should  prepare  and 
subscribe  a  declaration  for  that  purpose,  to  be  enrolled  in  the 
Court  of  Chancery  for  safe  custody,  naming  the  present  mem- 
bers, and  prescribing  the  mode  of  election  to  fill  vacancies, 
and  making  the  minutes  or  memorials  of  their  proceedings, 
signed  by  their  secretary,  evidence  of  such  elections,  to  which 
declaration  of  Mr.  Wesley,  so  enrolled,  all  the  trust  deeds 
should  refer.  JOHN  MADDOCKS. 

"  Lincoln's  Inn,  December  5,  178S."* 

Dr.  Coke  thus  narrates  his  further  connection  with 
the  affair : 

"  Soon  after  the  Conference  was  ended,  Mr.  Wesley  author- 
ized me  to  draw  up,  with  the  assistance  of  Mr.  Clulow,  all  the 
leading  parts  of  a  deed,  which  should  answer  the  above-men- 
tioned purposes.  This  we  did  with  much  care,  and,  as  for  my- 
self, I  can  truly  say  with  fear  and  trembling,  receiving  Mr. 
Maddocks's  advice  in  respect  to  every  step  we  took,  and  laying 
the  whole  ultimately  at  Mr.  Wesley's  feet  for  his  approbation, 
there  remained  now  nothing  but  to  insert  the  names  of  those 
who  were  to  constitute  the  Conference."  * 

The  result  was,  that  Mr.  Wesley,  after  making  a 
thorough  examination  of  the  case  under  the  best 
legal  advice,  signed  a  formal  document  in  which  he 
named  one  hundred  ministers  and  preachers  who 
should  constitute  the  legal  Conference. 

J  Pelrce's  Wesleyan  Polity,  8d  Ed ,  pp.  22, 23. 
I  Drew's  Life  of  Coke,  Amer.  Ed.,  p.  41 


60     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM, 

This  document  is  known  as  the  "  Deed  of  Decla- 
ration," called  in  legal  phraseology,  a  "  Deed  Poll," 
to  indicate  that  it  is  made  by  one  party  only,  in  con- 
tradistinction to  an  "  Indenture,"  which  is  a  deed  be- 
tween two  or  more  parties;  the  paper  or  parchment 
in  the  former  case  being  polled  or  shaved  even,  while 
in  the  latter  the  edges  were  indented  for  identifica- 
tion and  security. 

The  following  is  the  celebrated  Deed  of  Decla- 
ration in  question : 

MR.  WESLEY'S  DEED  OF  DECLARATION. 
Enrolled  in  His  Majesty's  High  Court  of  Chancery. 

(En  all  to  Wljom  (CIjESE  $r.E0ntfa  £fjall  Come,  JOHN 
WESLEY,  Late  of  Lincoln  College,  Oxford,  but  Now  of  the 
City  Road,  London,  Clerk,  Sendeth  Greeting: 
"  Whereas  divers  buildings,  commonly  called  chapels,  with 
a  messuage  and  dwelling-house,  or  other  appurtenances,  to 
each  of  the  same  belonging,  situate  in  various  parts  of  Great 
Britain,  have  been  given  and  conveyed,  from  time  to  time,  by 
the  same  John  Wesley,  to  certain  persons  and  their  heirs,  in 
each  of  the  said  gifts  and  conveyances  named,  which  are  en- 
rolled in  his  majesty's  High  Court  of  Chancery,  upon  the  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  said  John  Wesley  (pursuant  to  the  Act  of 
Parliament  in  that  case  made  and  provided) ;  upon  trust,  that 
the  trustees  in  the  said  several  deeds  respectively  named,  and  the 
survivors  of  them,  and  their  heirs  and  assigns,  and  the  trustees 
for  the  time  being,  to  be  elected  as  in  the  said  deeds  is  appointed, 
should  permit  and  suffer  the  said  John  Wesley,  and  such  other 
person  and  persons  as  he  should  for  that  purpose  from  time  to 
time  nominate  and  appoint,  at  all  times  during  his  life,  at  his 
will  and  pleasure  to  have  and  enjoy  the  free  use  and  benefit  of 
the  said  premises,  that  he,  the  said  John  Wesley,  and  such 
person  and  persons  as  he  should  nominate  and  appoint,  might 
therein  preach  and  expound  God's  Holy  Word ;  and,  upon 
further  trust,  that  the  said  respective  trustees,  and  the  sur 


WESLEY'S  DEED  OF  DECLARATION.          61 

vivors  of  them,  and  their  heirs  and  assigns,  and  the  trustees 
for  the  time  being,  should  permit  and  suffer  Charles  Wesley, 
brother  of  the  said  John  Wesley,  and  such  other  person  and 
persons  as  the  said  Charles  Wesley  should  for  that  purpose 
from  time  to  time  nominate  and  appoint,  in  like  manner  during 
his  life,  to  have,  use,  and  enjoy  the  said  premises  respectively, 
for  the  like  purposes  aforesaid,  and  after  the  decease  of  the  sur- 
vivor of  them,  the  said  John  Wesley  and  Charles  Wesley,  then, 
upon  further  trust,  that  the  said  respective  trustees,  and  the  sur- 
vivors of  them,  and  their  heirs  and  assigns,  and  the  trustees 
for  the  time  being  forever,  should  permit  and  suffer  such  per- 
son and  persons,  and  for  such  time  and  times,  as  should  be 
appointed  at  the  yearly  Conference  of  the  people  called  Meth- 
odists, in  London,  Bristol,  or  Leeds,  and  no  others,  to  have  and 
enjoy  the  said  premises  for  the  purposes  aforesaid ;  and  whereas 
divers  persons  have,  in  like  manner,  given  or  conveyed  many 
chapels,  with  messuages  and  dwelling  houses,  or  other  appur- 
tenances, to  the  same  belonging,  situate  in  various  parts  of 
Great  Britain  and  also  in  Ireland,  to  certain  trustees,  in  each 
of  the  said  gifts  and  conveyances  respectively  named,  upon  the 
like  trusts,  and  for  the  same  uses  and  purposes  aforesaid  (ex- 
cept only  that  in  some  of  the  said  gifts  and  conveyances,  no 
life  estate  or  other  intere.-t  is  therein  or  thereby  given  and  re- 
served to  the  said  Ch;irles  Wesley) ;  and  whereas,  for  render- 
ing effectual  the  trusts  created  by  the  said  several  gifts  or 
conveyances,  and  that  no  doubt  or  litigation  may  arise  with 
respect  unto  the  same,  or  the  interpretation  and  true  meaning 
thereof,  it  has  been  thought  expedient  by  the  said  John  Wes- 
ley, on  behalf  of  himself  as  donor  of  the  several  chapels,  with 
the  messuages,  dwelling-houses,  or  appurtenances  before  men- 
tioned, as  if  the  donors  of  the  said  other  chapels,  with  the 
messuages,  dwelling-houses  or  appurtenances,  to  the  same  be- 
longing, given  or  conveyed  to  the  like  uses  or  trusts,  to  explain 
the  words  '  Yearly  Conference  of  the  People  called  Methodists' 
contained  in  all  the  said  trust  deeds,  and  to  declare  what  per- 
sons are  members  of  the  said  Conference,  and  how  the  suc- 
cession and  identity  thereof  is  to  be  continued. 

"  Now,  therefore,  these  presents  witness,  that,  for  accom- 
plishing the  aforesaid  purposes,  the  said  John  Wesley  doth 
hereby  declare  that  the  Conference  of  the  people  called  Meth- 


62     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

odists,  in  London,  Bristol,  or  Leeds,  ever  since  there  hath  been 
any  Yearly  Conference  of  the  said  People  called  Methodists, 
in  any  of  the  said  places,  hath  always  heretofore  consisted  of 
the  preachers  and  expounders  of  God's  Holy  Word,  commonly 
called  Methodist  preachers,  in  connection  with,  and  under  the 
care  of,  the  said  John  Wesley,  whom  he  hath  thought  ex- 
pedient year  after  year  to  summon  to  meet  him,  in  one  or 
other  of  the  said  places,  of  London,  Bristol,  or  Leeds,  to 
advise  with  them  for  the  promotion  of  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
to  appoint  the  said  persons  so  summoned,  and  the  other 
preachers  and  expounders  of  God's  Holy  Word,  also  in  con- 
nection with,  and  under  the  care  of,  the  said  John  Wesley, 
not  summoned  to  the  said  yearly  Conference,  to  the  use  and 
enjoyment  of  the  said  chapels  and  premises  so  given  and  con- 
veyed upon  trust  for  the  said  John  Wesley  and  such  other 
person  and  persons  as  he  should  appoint  during  his  life  as 
aforesaid,  and  for  the  expulsion  of  unworthy  and  admission  of 
new  persons  under  his  care,  and  into  his  connection,  to  be 
preachers  and  expounders  as  aforesaid,  and  also  of  other  per- 
sons upon  trial  for  the  like  purposes ;  the  names  of  all  which 
persons  so  summoned  by  the  said  John  Wesley,  the  persons 
appointed,  with  the  chapels  and  premises  to  which  they  were 
so  appointed,  together  with  the  duration  of  such  appoint- 
ments, and  of  those  expelled  or  admitted  into  connection  or 
upon  trial  with  all  other  matters  transacted  and  done  at  the 
said  yearly  Conference,  have  year  by  year,  been  printed  and 
published  under  the  title  of  '  Minutes  of  Conference.' 

"And  these  presents  further  witness,  and  the  said  John 
Wesley  doth  hereby  avouch  and  further  declare,  that  the  sev- 
eral persons  hereinafter  named ;  to-wit,  the  said  John  Wesley 
and  Charles  Wesley;  Thomas  Coke,  of  the  city  of  London, 
Doctor  of  Civil  Law ;  James  Creighton,  of  the  same  place, 
clerk ;  Thomas  Tennant,  of  the  same  place ;  Thomas  Rankin, 
of  the  same  place ;  Joshua  Keighley,  of  Sevenoaks,  in  the 
county  of  Kent;  John  Booth,  of  Colchester;  Thomas  Cooper, 
of  the  same  place ;  Richard  Whatcoat,  of  Norwich ;  Jeremiah 
Brettel,  of  Lynn,  in  the  county  of  Norfolk ;  Jonathan  Parkin, 
of  the  same  place ;  Joseph  Pescod,  of  Bedford ;  Christopher 
Watkins,  of  Northampton ;  John  Barber,  of  the  same  place ; 
John  Broadbent,  of  Oxford ;  Joseph  Cole,  of  the  same  place ; 


WESLEY'S  DEED  OF  DECLARATION.  63 

Jonathan  Cousins,  of  the  city  of  Gloucester;  John  Brettel,  of 
the  same  place;  John  Mason,  of  Salisbury;  George  Story,  ol 
the  same  p'ace ;  Francis  Wrigley,  of  St.  Austle,  in  the  county 
of  Cornwall ;  William  Green,  of  the  city  of  Bristol ;  John 
Moon,  of  Plymouth  Dock;  James  Hall,  of  the  same  place; 
James  Thorn,  of  St.  Austle,  aforesaid ;  Joseph  Taylor,  of  Red- 
ruth,  in  the  said  county  of  Cornwall ;  William  Hoskins,  of 
Cardiff,  Glamorganshire;  John  Leech,  of  Brecon;  William 
Saunders,  of  the  same  place ;  Richard  Rodda,  of  Birmingham ; 
John  Fenwick,  of  Burslem,  Staffordshire ;  Thomas  Hanby,  of 
the  same  place ;  James  Rogers,  of  Macclesfield ;  Samuel  Bards- 
ley,  of  the  same  place;  John  Murlin,  of  Manchester;  William 
Percival,  of  the  same  place;  Duncan  Wright^  of  the  city  of 
Chester;  John  Goodwin,  of  the  same  place;  Parson  Green- 
wood, of  Liverpool ;  Zechariah  Udall,  of  the  same  place ; 
Thomas  Vaeey,  of  the  same  place ;  Joseph  Bradford,  of  Leices- 
ter; Jeremiah  Robertshaw,  of  the  same  place;  William  Myles, 
of  Nottingham ;  Thomas  Longley,  of  Derby ;  Thomas  Taylor, 
of  Sheffield;  William  Simpson,  of  the  same  place;  Thomas 
Carlill,  of  Grimsby,  in  the  county  of  Lincoln ;  Robert  Scott, 
of  the  same  place ;  Joseph  Harper,  of  the  same  place ;  Thomas 
Corbit,  of  Gainsborough,  in  the  county  of  Lincoln ;  James 
Ray,  of  the  same  place ;  William  Thompson,  of  Leeds,  in  the 
county  of  York ;  Robert  Roberts,  of  the  same  place ;  Samuel 
Bradburn,  of  the  same  place ;  John  Valton,  of  Birstal,  in  the 
said  county ;  John  Allen,  of  the  same  place ;  Isaac  Brown,  of 
the  same  place ;  Thomas  Hanson,  of  Huddersfield,  in  the 
said  county ;  John  Shaw,  of  the  same  place ;  Alexander 
Mather,  of  Bradford,  in  the  said  county ;  Joseph  Benson,  of 
Halifax,  in  the  said  county;  William  Dufton,  of  the  same 
place ;  Benjamin  Rhodes,  of  Keighley,  in  the  said  county ;  John 
Easton,  of  Colne,  in  the  county  of  Lancaster ;  Robert  Costerdine, 
of  the  same  place  ;  Jasper  Robinson,  of  the  Isle  of  Man ;  George 
Button,  of  the  same  place ;  John  Pawson,  of  the  city  of  York ; 
Edward  Jackson,  of  Hull ;  Charles  Atmore,  of  the  said  city  of 
York;  Lancelot  Harrison,  of  Scarborough;  George  Shadford  of 
Hull  aforesaid;  Barnabas  Thomas,  of  the  same  place;  Thomas 
Briscoe,  of  Yarm,  in  the  said  county  of  York ;  Christopher  Pea- 
cock, of  the  same  place ;  William  Thorn,  of  Whitby,  in  the  said 
county  of  York ;  Robert  Hopkins,  of  the  same  place ;  John  Pea- 


64     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

cock,  of  Barnard  Castle ;  William  Collins,  of  Sunderland ;  Thomas 
Dixon,  of  Newcastle-upon-Tyne ;  Christopher  Hopper,  of  the 
same  place;  William  Boothby,  of  the  same  place;  William 
Hunter,  of  Berwick-upon-Tweed ;  Joseph  Saunderson,  of  Dun- 
dee, Scotland ;  William  Warrener,  of  the  same  place ;  Duncan 
M'Allum,  of  Aberdeen,  Scotland ;  Thomas  Rutherford,  of  the 
city  of  Dublin,  in  the  kingdom  of  Ireland ;  Daniel  Jackson,  of 
the  same  place ;  Henry  Moore,  of  the  city  of  Cork,  Ireland;  An- 
drew Blair,  of  the  same  place ;  Richard  Watkinson,  of  Limer- 
ick, Ireland;  Nehemiah  Price,  of  Athlone,  Ireland;  Robert 
Lindsay,  of  Sligo,  Ireland ;  George  Brown,  of  Clones,  Ireland ; 
Thomas  Barber,  of  Charlemont,  Ireland;  Henry  Foster,  of 
Belfast,  Ireland ;  and  John  Crook,  of  Lisburne,  Ireland,  gentle- 
men— being  preachers  and  expounders  of  God's  Holy  Word, 
under  the  care  and  in  connection  with  the  said  John  Wesley, 
have  been,  and  now  are  and  do,  on  the  day  of  the  date  hereof, 
constitute  the  members  of  the  said  Conference,  according  to 
the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  said  several  gifts  and  con- 
veyances wherein  the  words,  'Conference  of  the  people  called 
Methodists,"  are  mentioned  and  contained ;  and  that  the  said 
several  persons  before-named,  and  their  successors  forever,  to 
be  chosen  as  hereafter  mentioned,  are  and  shall  forever  be 
construed,  taken,  and  be  the  Conference  of  the  people  called 
Methodists.  Nevertheless,  upon  the  terms  and  subject  to  the 
regulations  hereinafter  prescribed ;  that  is  to  say, 

"First.  That  the  members  of  the  said  Conference  and 
their  successors,  for  the  time  being  forever,  shall  assemble 
once  in  every  year,  at  London,  Bristol,  or  Leeds  {except  as 
after  mentioned),  for  the  purposes  aforesaid ;  and  the  time  and 
place  of  holding  every  subsequent  Conference  shall  be  ap- 
pointed at  the  preceding  one,  save  that  the  next  Conference 
after  the  date  hereof  shall  be  holden  at  Leeds,  in  Yorkshire, 
the  last  Tuesday  in  July  next. 

"  Second.  The  act  of  the  majority  in  number  of  the  Con- 
ference assembled  as  aforesaid  shall  be  had,  taken,  and  be  the 
act  of  the  whole  Conference  to  all  intents,  purposes,  and  con- 
structions whatsoever. 

"Third.  That  after  the  Conference  shall  be  assembled  as 
aforesaid,  they  shall  first  proceed  to  fill  up  all  the  vacancies 
occasioned  by  death  or  absence,  as  after  mentioned. 


WESLEY  s  DEED  OP  DECLARATION.  65 

"Fourth.  No  act  of  the  Conference  assembled  as  afore- 
said shall  be  had,  taken,  or  be  the  act  of  the  Conference  until 
forty  of  the  members  thereof  are  assembled,  unless  reduced 
under  that  number  by  death  since  the  prior  Conference,  or 
absence  as  after  mentioned,  nor  until  all  the  vacancies  occa- 
sioned by  death  or  absence  shall  be  filled  up  by  the  election 
of  new  members  of  the  Conference,  so  as  to  make  up  the 
number  one  hundred,  unless  there  be  not  a  sufficient  number 
of  persons  objects  of  such  election ;  and  during  the  assembly 
of  the  Conference,  there  shall  always  be  forty  members  pres- 
ent at  the  doing  of  any  act,  save  as  aforesaid,  or  otherwise  such 
act  shall  be  void. 

"  Fifth.  The  duration  of  the  yearly  assembly  of  the  Con- 
ference shall  not  be  less  than  five  days,  nor  more  than  three 
weeks,  and  be  concluded  by  the  appointment  of  the  Confer- 
ence, if  under  twenty-one  days;  or,  otherwise,  the  conclusion 
thereof  shall  follow,  of  course,  at  the  end  of  the  said  twenty- 
one  days ;  the  whole  of  all  which  said  time  of  the  assembly  of 
the  Conference  shall  be  had,  taken,  considered,  and  be  the 
yearly  Conference  of  the  people  called  Methodists;  and  all 
acts  of  the  Conference,  during  such  yearly  assembly  thereof, 
shall  be  the  acts  of  the  Conference,  and  none  other. 

"Sixth.  Immediately  after  all  the  vacancies  occasioned  by 
death  or  absence  are  filled  up  by  the  election  of  new  members, 
as  aforesaid,  the  Conference  shall  choose  a  president  and  secre- 
tary of  their  assembly  out  of  themselves,  who  shall  continue 
such  until  the  election  of  another  president  or  secretary  in  the 
next  or  other  subsequent  Conference ;  and  the  said  president 
shall  have  the  privilege  and  power  of  two  members  in  all  acts 
of  the  Conference  during  his  presidency,  and  such  other  powers, 
privileges,  and  authorities  as  the  Conference  shall  from  time 
to  time  see  fit  to  intrust  into  his  hands. 

"  Seventh.  Any  member  of  the  Conference  absenting 
himself  from  the  yearly  assembly  thereof  for  two  years  suc- 
cessively, without  the  consent  of  or  dispensation  of  the  Con- 
ference, and  be  not  present  on  the  first  day  of  the  third  yearly 
assembly  thereof,  at  the  time  and  place  appointed  for  the 
holding  of  the  same,  shall  cease  to  be  a  member  of  the  Con- 
ference from  and  after  the  said  first  day  of  the  said  third 
yearly  assembly  thereof,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  though 


66     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

he  were  naturally  dead.  But  the  Conference  shall  and  may 
dispense  with,  or  consent  to  the  absence  of  any  member  from 
any  of  the  said  yearly  assemblies  for  any  cause  which  the  said 
Conference  may  see  fit  or  necessary;  and  such  member,  whose 
absence  shall  be  so  dispensed  with  or  consented  to  by  the  Con- 
ference, shall  not,  by  such  absence,  cease  to  be  a  member  thereof. 

"Eighth.  The  Conference  shall  and  may  expel  and  put 
ovt  from  being  a  member  thereof,  or  from  being  in  connection 
therewith,  or  from  being  upon  trial,  any  person,  member  of  the 
Conference,  or  admitted  into  connection  or  upon  trial,  for  any 
cause  which  to  the  Conference  may  seem  fit  or  necessary ;  and 
every  member  of  the  Conference  so  expelled  and  put  out 
shall  cease  to  be  a  member  thereof,  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses, as  though  he  was  naturally  dead.  And  the  Conference, 
immediately  after  the  expulsion  of  any  member  thereof  as 
aforesaid,  shall  elect  another  person  to  be  a  member  of  the 
Conference  in  the  stead  of  such  member  so  expelled. 

"  Ninth.  The  Conference  shall  and  may  admit  into  con- 
nection with  them,  or  upon  trial,  any  person  or  persons  whom 
they  shall  approve  to  be  preachers  and  expounders  of  God's 
Holy  Word,  under  the  care  and  direction  of  the  Conference ; 
the  name  of  every  such  person  or  persons  so  admitted  into 
connection  or  upon  trial,  as  aforesaid,  with  the  time  and  de- 
grees of  the  admission,  being  entered  in  the  Journals  or  Min- 
utes of  the  Conference. 

"  Tenth.  No  person  shall  be  elected  a  member  of  the  Con- 
ference who  hath  not  been  admitted  into  connection  with  the 
Conference,  as  a  preacher  and  expounder  of  God's  Holy  Word, 
as  aforesaid,  for  twelve  months. 

"  Eleventh.  The  Conference  shall  not,  nor  may,  nominate  or 
appoint  any  person  to  the  use  and  enjoyment  of,  or  to  preach 
and  expound  God's  Holy  Word,  in  any  of  the  chapels  and 
premises  so  given  or  conveyed,  or  which  may  be  given  or 
conveyed,  upon  the  trusts  aforesaid,  who  is  not  either  a 
member  of  the  Conference,  or  admitted  into  connection  with 
the  same,  or  upon  trial,  as  aforesaid ;  nor  appoint  any  per- 
son for  more  than  three  years  successively  to  the  use  and  en- 
joyment of  any  chapel  and  premises  already  given,  or  to  be 
given  or  conveyed  upon  the  trusts  aforesaid,  except  ordained 
ministers  of  the  Church  of  England. 


WESLEY'S  DEED  OF  DECLARATION.          67 

"Twelfth.  That  the  Conference  shall  and  may  appoint 
the  place  of  holding  the  early  assembly  thereof  at  any  other 
city,  town,  or  place  than  London,  Bristol,  or  Leeds,  when  it 
shall  seem  expedient  so  to  do. 

"Thirteenth.  And  for  the  convenience  of  the  chapela 
and  premises  already,  or  which  may  hereafter  be  given  or  con- 
veyed upon  the  trusts  aforesaid,  situate  in  Ireland  or  other 
parts  out  of  the  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain,  the  Conference  shall 
and  may,  when  and  as  often  as  it  shall  seem  expedient,  but  not 
otherwise,  appoint  and  delegate  any  member  or  members  of 
the  Conference  with  all  or  any  of  the  powers,  privileges,  and 
advantages,  herein  before  contained  or  vested  in  the  Confer- 
ence ;  and  all  and  every  the  acts,  admissions,  expulsions,  and 
appointments  whatsoever  of  such  member  or  members  of  the 
Conference,  so  appointed  and  delegated  as  aforesaid,  the  same 
being  put  into  writing  and  signed  by  such  delegate  or  dele- 
gates, and  entered  into  the  Journals  or  Minutes  of  the  Confer- 
ence, and  subscribed  as  after  mentioned,  shall  be  deemed, 
taken,  and  be  the  acts,  admissions,  expulsions,  and  appoint- 
ments of  the  Conference  to  all  intents,  constructions,  and  pur- 
poses whatsoever,  from  the  respective  times  when  the  same 
shall  be  done  by  such  delegate  or  delegates,  notwithstanding 
anything  herein  contained  to  the  contrary. 

"Fourteenth.  All  resolutions  and  orders  touching  elec- 
tions, admissions,  expulsions,  consents,  dispensations,  dele- 
gations, or  appointments  and  acts  whatsoever  of  the  Confer- 
ence, shall  be  entered  and  written  in  the  Journals  or  Minutes 
ot  the  Conference,  which  shall  be  kept  for  that  purpose,  pub- 
licly read,  and  then  subscribed  by  the  president  and  secretary 
thereof  for  the  time  being,  during  the  time  such  Conference 
shall  be  assembled;  and  when  so  entered  and  subscribed, 
shall  be  had,  taken,  received,  and  be  the  acts  of  the  Confer- 
ence, and  such  entry  and  subscription  as  aforesaid  shall  be 
had,  taken,  received,  and  be  evidence  of  all  and  every  such 
acts  of  the  said  Conference,  and  of  their  said  delegates,  with- 
out the  aid  of  any  other  proof;  and  whatever  shall  not  be  so 
entered  and  subscribed  as  aforesaid,  shall  not  be  had,  taken, 
received,  or  be  the  act  of  the  Conference ;  and  the  said  president 
and  secretary  are  hereby  required  and  obliged  to  enter  and 
subscribe,  as  aforesaid,  every  act  whatever  of  the  Conference. 


68     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"  Lastly.  Whenever  the  said  Conference  shall  be  reduced 
under  the  number  of  forty  members,  and  continue  so  reduced 
for  three  yearly  assemblies  thereof,  successively,  or  whenever  the 
members  thereof  shall  decline  or  neglect  to  meet  together  annu- 
ally for  the  purposes  aforesaid  during  the  space  of  three  years, 
that  then,  and  in  either  of  the  said  events,  the  Conference  of 
the  people  called  Methodists  shall  be  extinguished,  and  all  the 
aforesaid  powers,  privileges,  and  advantages  shall  cease,  and 
the  said  chapels  and  premises  and  all  other  chapels  and 
premises,  which  now  are  or  hereafter  may  be  settled,  given, 
or  conveyed  upon  the  trust  aforesaid,  shall  vest  in  the  trustees 
for  the  time  being  of  the  said  chapels  and  premises  respect- 
ively, and  their  successors  forever ;  upon  trust,  that  they  and 
the  survivors  of  them,  and  the  trustees  for  the  time  being  do, 
shall,  and  may  appoint  such  person  and  persons  to  preach  and 
expound  God's  Holy  Word  therein,  and  to  have  the  use  and  en- 
joyment thereof,  for  such  time  and  in  such  manner  as  to  them 
shall  seem  proper: 

"Provided,  always,  that  nothing  herein  contained  shall  ex- 
tend or  be  construed  to  extend,  to  extinguish,  lessen,  or  abridge 
the  life  estate  of  the  said  John  Wesley  and  Charles  Wesley,  or 
either  of  them,  of,  and  in,  any  of  the  said  chapels  and  premises, 
or  any  other  chapels  and  premises  wherein  they,  the  said  John 
Wesley  and  Charles  Wesley,  or  either  of  them,  now  have,  or 
may  have,  any  estate  or  interest,  power,  or  authority  whatsoever. 

"  In  Witness  Whereof,  the  said  John  Wesley  hath  hereunto 
set  his  hand  and  seal  the  twenty-eighth  day  of  February,  in 
the  twenty-fourth  year  of  the  reign  of  our  sovereign  lord, 
George  the  Third,  by  the  grace  of  God,  of  Great  Britain, 
France,  and  Ireland,  King,  Defender  of  the  Faith,  and  so  forth, 
and  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and 
eighty-four.  JOHN  WESLEY. 

"Sealed  and  delivered  (being  first  duly  stamped)  in ) 
the  presence  of  j 

"  WILLIAM  CLULOW,  Quality  Court,  Chancery  Lane,  London. 

"  RICHARD  YOUNG,  clerk  to  the  said  William  Clulow. 

"Taken  and  acknowledged  by  the  Rev.  John  Wes'ey, 
party  thereto,  this  28th  of  February,  1784,  at  the  public  office, 
before  me,  EDWARD  MONTAGU. 


WESWJY'S  DBED  OP  DECLARATION.         69 

"  The  above  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original  Deed  (which  is 
enrolled  in  Chancery)  and  was  therewith  examined  by  us. 

"WILLIAM  CLULOW. 
"  RICHABD  YOUNG. 
"  ENDORSEMENT. 

"Dated  Feb.  28th,  1784. 

"  CLULOW. 

"  The  Rev.  John  Wesley's  Declaration  and  Appointment  of 
the  Conference  of  the  people  called  Methodists,  enrolled  in 
His  Majesty's  High  Court  of  Chancery,  the  ninth  day  of  March, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1784,  being  first  duly  stamped  accord- 
ing to  the  tenor  of  the  statutes  made  for  that  purpose. 

"  THOMAS  BRIGSTOCK."* 

This  legal  instrument  has  been  called  the 
"Magna  Charta  of  Methodism."  Certainly  it  was 
the  Magna  Charta  of  British  Methodism;  and,  though 
various  attempts  have  been  made  to  set  it  aside,  its 
validity  has  been  confirmed  by  the  highest  judicial 
authorities.*  It  gave  a  legal  definition  of  the  term 
"the  Conference  of  the  People  called  Methodists," 
and  so  secured  title  to  the  chapel  property,  and  pre- 
vented British  Methodism  being  broken  up  into  iso- 
lated congregational  Churches,  which  might  have  had 
only  an  ephemeral  existence. 

Dr.  Beecham,  in  his  essay  on  the  "  Constitution 
of  Methodism,"  states  that  "its  object  was  to  give 
such  a  legal  specification  of  the  Conference  as  would 
ever  secure  for  that  assembly,  in  the  exercise  of  its 
right  of  appointing  preachers  to  the  chapels,  the  pro- 
tection of  the  law  of  the  land."  But  its  effect  was 
even  more  than  this ;  for  it  gave  the  Conference  a 

»  Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  753-759. 

«  Plerce'a  Eccl.  Principles  and  Polity  of  Wesleyun  Methodism,  p.  21. 


70     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

legal  existence,  and  also  endowed  it  with  the  supreme 
power  which  had  been  centered  in  Mr.  Wesley.  By 
this  act  the  Rev.  John  Wesley  transferred  to  the  Con- 
ference of  Methodist  ministers  supreme  legislative, 
judicial,  and  executive  authority  over  both  preachers 
and  people  called  Methodists.  The  deed  made  it 
necessary  for  the  Conference  to  meet  annually,  and 
made  the  vote  of  the  majority  the  act  of  the  whole 
Conference.  It  also  provided  for  the  filling  of  va- 
cancies, and  specified  other  points  essential  to  the 
continuance  of  the  Conference. 

The  Conference  did  not  assume  this  power  until 
the  decease  of  Mr.  Wesley ;  but  it  marked  an  era  in 
British  Methodism  when,  for  the  first  time,  this  dec- 
laration of  power  in  the  Conference,  and  this  recog- 
nition of  the  right  and  power  to  determine  questions 
by  a  majority  vote,  was  enrolled  in  the  High  Court  of 
Chancery,  as  was  done  in  London,  on  the  28th  day  of 
February,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1784. 

Dr.  Coke  promptly  sent  copies  of  the  Deed  of  Dec- 
laration to  the  principal  preachers  on  the  circuits. 
Probably  he  did  this  on  his  own  notion,  for  he  writes: 
"  All  things  necessary  being  completed  in  the  Court 
of  Chancery  according  to  law,  I  thought  it  my  duty 
to  send  copies  of  the  deed  to  all  assistants  of  circuits 
throughout  Great  Britain,  and  I  afterward  carried 
copies  of  it  to  Ireland." l 

There  was  one  point  in  the  deed,  however,  which 
soon  provoked  criticism,  and  that  was  the  part  which 

i  Drew 's  Lif*  of  Coke,  Araer.  Ed.,  pp.  48, 49. 


WESLEY'S  DEED  OF  DECLARATION.          71 

recited  that  one  hundred  preachers  should  be  the 
legal  Conference.  At  once  those  who  were  not 
named  feared  that  the  "legal  hundred"  would  take 
advantage  of  them. 

One  who  came  in  for  his  share  of  blame  was  Dr. 
Coke,1  probably  because  of  the  activity,  he  had  shown 
in  securing  the  deed,  and  also  because  of  the  confi- 
dence reposed  in  him  by  Mr.  Wesley.  Dr.  Coke, 
however,  disclaimed  any  responsibility  for  the  limited 
number.  As  already  cited,  Dr.  Coke  left  the  deed 
with  Mr.  Wesley  in  such  a  state  of  completion  that 
"  there  remained  now  nothing  but  to  insert  the  names 
of  those  who  were  to  constitute  the  Conference." 
Then  Dr.  Coke  relates  that  "  Mr.  Wesley  then  de- 
clared that  he  would  limit  the  number  to  one  hun- 
dred. This  was,  indeed,  contrary  to  my  very  humble 
opinion,  which  was  that  every  preacher  in  full  con- 
nection should  be  a  member  of  the  Conference,  and 
that  admission  into  full  connection  should  be  looked 
upon  as  admission  into  full  membership  with  the 
Conference;  and  I  still  believe  it  will  be  most  for 
the  glory  of  God  and  the  peace  of  our  Zion  that  the 
members  of  the  Conference  admit  the  other  preachers 
who  are  in  full  connection,  and  are  present  at  the  Confer- 
ence from  time  to  time,  to  a  full  vote  on  all  occasions. 
However,  of  course,  I  submitted  to  the  superior  judg- 
ment and  authority  of  Wesley.  But  I  do  publicly 
avow  that  I  was  not  concerned  in  the  limitation  of 
the  number  or  the  selection  of  the  hundred  preach- 

» Rev.  Henry  Moore.  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  II,  p.  249. 


72     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

era  who  were  nominated  the  members  of  the  Confer- 
ence." l 

There  is  no  doubt  that  Dr.  Coke  accurately  stated 
the  case;  for  when,  at  the  first  Conference  after  the 
deed  was  enrolled,  some  of  the  preachers  asserted 
that  it  was  the  work  of  Dr.  Coke,  "  Mr.  Wesley  only 
replied  to  this  in  the  words  of  Virgil :  Non  vult,  non 
potuit — 'He  had  neither  the  will  nor  the  power.'"2 
Dr.  Coke  appears  to  have  had  much  to  do  with  se- 
curing the  legal  opinion,  and  suggesting  points  to  be 
recited  in  the  deed,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  he 
had  anything  to  do  with  limiting  the  number  to  one 
hundred  or  naming  the  hundred. 

Individuals  here  and  there  expressed  themselves 
with  considerable  vehemence  against  the  naming  of 
only  one  hundred,  when  there  were  one  hundred  and 
ninety-two  preachers  altogether;  and  some  maintained 
that  there  was  lack  of  equity  in  the  selection,  for  the 
names  of  some  of  the  senior  and  respectable  preach- 
ers had  been  omitted,  and  the  names  of  younger  men 
were  inserted. 

Naturally,  those  who  were  not  named  in  the  deed 
were  exceedingly  grieved,  and  expressed  their  feelings 
in  various  ways.3  This  serious  crisis  passed  without 
any  other  immediate  consequences  than  the  retire- 
ment of  the  five  principal  opponents  of  the  limitation 


•  Coke's  Address  to  the  Methodist  Society  In  Great  Britain  and  Ire- 
land on  the  Settlement  of  the  Preaching-houses,  in  Drew's  Life  of 
Coke.  Amer.  Ed.,  p.  48. 

*Rev.  Henry  Moore,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  II,  p.  249. 

*Pawson'8  MS.  Memoir  of  Whlteliead;  Hampson's  Life  of  John 
Wesley,  1791 ;  Tyerinnu,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  422-424, 


WESLEY'S  DEED  OF  DECLARATION.          73 

to  one  hundred;  namely,  John  Hampson,  Sr.;  his 
son,  John  Hampson,  Jr.;  John  Atlay,  Joseph  Pil- 
moor,  and  William  Eels,  who  had  been  in  the  Meth- 
odist ministry  thirty-one,  six,  twenty-one,  nineteen, 
and  twelve  years  respectively,  but  whose  names  had 
not  been  mentioned  in  the  deed.1  Mr.  Fletcher's 
friendly  efforts  effected  a  temporary  reconciliation, 
but  it  was  of  short  duration ;  and  it  is  supposed  that 
out  of  this  matter  of  the  deed  grew  the  apparent  bit- 
terness manifested,  in  some  instances,  in  Hampson's 
"  Memoirs  of  John  Wesley,"  and  also  some  of  the 
peculiarities  of  Whitehead's  "  Life  of  Wesley."2 

An  incident  which  occurred  about  this  time  led 
Mr.  Wesley  to  make  a  full  statement  of  the  whole 
affair. 

At  Plymouth  Dock,  William  Moore  had  renounced 
the  Methodists  and  had  secured  a  preaching-place  of 
his  own,  taking  with  him  about  forty  members  of  the 
old  society.  In  view  of  this,  Mr.  Wesley  was  urged 
to  visit  the  place  at  once,  which  he  did  with  great 
promptness,  reaching  there  on  the  2d  of  March,  1785, 
and  on  the  evening  of  the  3d  he  says:  "I  read  to 
the  whole  congregation  a  plain  statement  of  the  case, 
with  regard  to  the  '  Deed  of  Declaration/  which 
William  Moore  had  so  wonderfully  misrepresented; 
and  I  believe  they  were  all  fully  satisfied."3  This 
evidently  was  the  paper  afterward  published  under 

»Tyerman'«Llfeof  John  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  422,  423;  Whitehead's 
Life  of  John  We*ley,  Jones's  Dublin  Ed.,  pp.  80S,  399. 

« Whitehead's  Wesley,  Dublin  Ed.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  898,  399;  Henry 
Moore,  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  II,  pp.  248, 249 

•Wesley's  Journal,  Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  Vol.  IV,  p.  008. 

0 


7*     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

the  title,  "  Thoughts  upon  Some  Late  Occurrences/' 
and  dated  Plymouth  Dock,  March  3,  1785,  part  of 
which  we  have  already  quoted  in  another  con- 
nection. 

In  this  statement  he  explains  the  origin  and  na- 
ture of  the  Conferences  which  he  had  called  together 
annually,  showing  that  all  power  was  lodged  in  him- 
self, and  that  the  Conference,  called  at  his  pleasure, 
was  simply  invited  to  confer  with  him.  Continuing, 
he  says: 

"Some  years  after  it  was  agreed  that,  after  the  decease  of 
my  brother  and  me,  the  preachers  should  be  stationed  by  the 
Conference.  But  erelong  a  question  arose:  What  does  that 
term  mean?  Who  are  the  Conference?  It  appeared  difficult 
to  define  the  term.  And  the  year  before  last,  all  our  brethren 
who  were  met  at  Bristol  desired  me  to  fix  the  determinate 
meaning  of  the  word. 

"  Hitherto  it  had  meant,  not  the  whole  body  of  traveling 
preachers  (it  never  bore  that  meaning  at  all),  but  those  per- 
sons whom  I  invited  yearly  to  confer  with  me.  But  to  this 
there  was  a  palpable  objection — such  a  Conference  would 
have  no  being  after  my  death.  And  what  other  definition  of 
it  to  give,  I  knew  not;  at  least,  I  knew  none  that  would  stand 
good  in  law.  I  consulted  a  skillful  and  honest  attorney,  and 
he  consulted  an  eminent  counselor,  who  answered :  '  There  is 
no  way  of  doing  this  but  by  naming  a  determinate  number  of 
persons.  The  deed  which  names  these  must  be  enrolled  in 
chancery;  then  it  will  stand  good  in  law.' 

"  My  first  thouglit  was  to  name  a  very  few,  suppose  ten 
or  twelve  persons.  Count  Zinzendorf  named  only  six,  who 
were  to  preside  over  the  community  after  his  decease.  But, 
on  second  thoughts,  I  believed  there  would  be  more  safety  in 
a  greater  number  of  counselors,  and  therefore  named  a  hun- 
dred— as  many  as  I  judged  could  meet  without  too  great  an 
expense,  and  without  leaving  any  circuit  naked  of  preachers 
while  the  Conference  met. 


WESLEY'S  DEED  OP  DECLARATION.  75 

"  In  naming  these  preachers,  as  I  had  no  adviser,  so  I  had 
no  respect  of  persons ;  but  I  simply  set  down  those  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  best  of  my  judgment,  were  most  proper.  But 
I  am  not  infallible.  I  might  mistake,  and  think  better  of 
some  of  them  than  they  deserved.  However,  I  did  my  best ; 
and  if  I  did  wrong  it  was  not  the  error  of  my  will,  but  of  my 
judgment. 

"This  was  the  rise  and  this  is  the  nature  of  that  famous 
'  Deed  of  Declaration ' — that  vile,  wicked  deed  ! — concerning 
which  you  have  heard  such  an  outcry.  And  now,  can  any 
one  tell  me  how  to  mend  it,  or  how  it  could  have  been  made 
better?  '0  yes,  you  might  have  inserted  two  hundred,  as 
well  as  one  hundred  preachers.'  No,  for  then  the  expense  of 
meeting  would  have  been  double,  and  all  the  circuits  would 
have  been  without  preachers.  'But  you  might  have  named 
other  preachers  instead  of  these.'  True,  if  I  had  thought  as 
well  of  them  as  they  did  of  themselves.  But  I  did  not;  there- 
fore I  could  do  no  otherwise  than  I  did,  without  sinning 
against  God  and  my  own  conscience. 

" '  But  what  need  was  there  for  any  deed  at  all  ?'  There 
was  the  utmost  need  of  it.  Without  some  authentic  deed 
fixing  the  meaning  of  the  term,  the  moment  I  died  the  Con- 
ference had  been  nothing.  Therefore  any  of  the  proprietors 
of  the  land  on  which  our  preaching-houses  were  built  might 
have  seized  them  for  their  own  use,  and  there  would  have 
been  none  to  hinder  them ;  for  the  Conference  would  have 
been  nobody — a  mere  empty  name. 

"  You  see,  then,  in  all  the  pains  I  have  taken  about  this 
absolutely  necessary  deed  I  have  been  laboring,  not  for  my- 
self (I  have  no  interest  therein),  but  for  the  whole  body  of 
Methodists,  in  order  to  fix  them  upon  such  a  foundation  as  is 
likely  to  stand  as  long  as  the  sun  and  moon  endure.  That  is, 
if  they  continue  to  walk  by  faith,  and  to  show  forth  their  faith 
by  their  works ;  otherwise  I  pray  God  to  root  out  the  memorial 
of  them  from  the  earth."  * 

It  is  quite  probable  that  Mr.  Wesley  had  not 
much  faith  in  the  governing  power  of  the  promis- 

1  "Thoughts  upon  Some  Late  Occurrences,"  Wesley's  Works,  A.mer. 
Ed.,  Vol.  VII,  pp.  309,  310. 


76     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

cuous  mass,  and  preferred  to  trust  the  wisdom  of  a 
smaller  number  of  the  ablest  and  most  intelligent; 
but  whatever  may  be  thought  of  his  views  in  the 
abstract,  it  must  be  admitted  that  he  had  made  great 
advances  towards  a  more  democratic  government. 

According  to  the  plan  proposed  in  1769  the  prop- 
osition was,  that  after  his  death  the  Conference  should 
elect  "a  committee  of  three,  five,  or  seven,"  in  whom 
should  be  vested  the  same  power  which  Mr.  Wesley 
had  possessed.  Count  Zinzendorf,  in  the  case  of  the 
Moravians,  named  only  six.  Mr.  Wesley,  therefore, 
made  a  great  advance  on  his  own  ideas,  and  a  great 
improvement  on  the  example  of  Zinzendorf,  when  he 
named  one  hundred  persons  to  constitute  the  legal 
Conference,  among  whom  was  to  be  diffused  the  su- 
preme power  which  he  had  exerted. 

Our  instincts  and  training  to-day  would  lead  us  to 
believe  that  it  would  have  been  wiser  for  Mr.  Wesley 
to  have  included  the  name  of  every  preacher  in  full 
connection,  but  at  the  same  time  we  must  feel  that 
there  is  force  in  his  explanation.  To  have  inserted 
all  would  have  made  a  long  list  of  names,  and,  as 
Moore  says,  "There  never  had  been  so  great  a  num- 
ber [as  one  hundred]  at  any  Conference,  and  generally 
from  twenty  to  thirty  less,  the  number  so  fixed  would 
riot,  it  was  thought,  have  excited  either  surprise  or 
displeasure."  * 

It  was  a  crisis  in  the  history  of  British  Method- 
ism, but  it  was  passed  with  comparative  safety.  Mr. 
Wesley  himself  never  intended  any  injustice  to  the 

i  Re v.Henry  Moore,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  II,  p.  250. 


WESLEY'S  DEED  OF  DECLARATION.  7? 

ministers  who  were  not  named  in  the  deed,  and  was 
anxious  to  prevent  any  possible  injury  to  them;  so  as 
early  as  April,  1785,  he  wrote  the  following  letter, 
which  he  placed  in  the  hands  of  one  of  the  preachers — 
Mr.  Joseph  Bradford — with  instruction  to  deliver  it  to 
the  Conference  at  the  first  session  immediately  after 
his  decease: 

"  CHESTER,  April  7,  1785. 
"  To  the  Methodist  Conference: 

"My  DEAR  BRETHREN, — Some  of  our  traveling  preachers 
have  expressed  a  fear  that,  after  my  decease,  you  would  ex- 
clude them  either  from  preaching  in  connection  with  you  or 
from  some  other  privileges  which  they  now  enjoy.  I  know  no 
other  way  to  prevent  any  such  inconvenience  than  to  leave 
•these,  my  last  words,  with  you.  I  beseech  you  by  the  mercies 
of  God,  that  you  never  avail  yourselves  of  the  Deed  of  Decla- 
ration to  assume  any  superiority  over  your  brethren,  but  let  all 
things  go  on  among  those  itinerants  who  choose  to  remain  to- 
gether, exactly  in  the  same  manner  as  when  I  was  with  you, 
so  far  as  circumstances  will  permit.  In  particular,  I  beseech 
you,  if  you  ever  loved  me,  and  if  you  now  love  God  and  your 
brethren,  to  have  no  respect  of  persons  in  stationing  the 
preachers,  in  choosing  children  for  Kingswood  School,  in  dis- 
posing of  the  yearly  contribution  and  the  preachers'  fund,  or 
any  other  public  money.  But  do  all  things  with  a  single  eye, 
as  I  have  done  from  the  beginning.  Go  on  thus,  doing  all 
things  without  prejudice  or  partiality,  and  God  will  be  with 
you  even  to  the  end.  JOHN  WESLEY."  l 

Of  course,  as  long  as  Mr.  Wesley  lived  the  con- 
tents of  this  paternal  letter  were  private. 

At  the  Conference  of  1785,  in  order  to  quiet  the 
uneasiness  and  to  defend  Mr.  Wesley,  all  the  preachers 
who  were  present  signed  the  following  declarations  of 

>  Mlnule*  1791,  Vol  I,  pp.  242, 243;  Peirce's  Wesleyan  Polity,  8d  Ed., 
pp.  31,  32;  Wm.  My  lea,  llisL  of  Methodists,  London,  3d  Ed.  1803,  pp. 
U7.  198. 


78     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

their  approval  of  the  substance  and  design   of  the 
Deed  of  Declaration : 

"  LONDON,  July  3,  1785. 

"  We,  whose  names  are  under  written,  do  declare  that  Mr. 
Wesley  was  desired  at  the  last  Bristol  Conference,  without  a 
dissentient  voice,  to  draw  up  a  deed  which  should  give  a  le- 
gal specification  of  the  phrase  '  The  Conference  of  the  People 
called  Methodists ;'  and  that  the  mode  of  doing  it  was  en- 
tirely left  to  his  judgment  and  discretion. 

"  And  we  do  also  declare  that  we  do  approve  of  the  sub- 
stance and  design  of  the  deed  which  Mr.  Wesley  has  accord- 
ingly executed  and  enrolled. 

"  Thomas  Coke,  Thomas  Hanby,  John  Pawson,  John 
Murlin,  Thomas  Taylor,  John  Broadbent,  George  Shadford, 
Samuel  Bradburn,  Francis  Wrigley,  Duncan  Wright,  William 
Thompson,  John  Valton,  Alexander  Mather,  Thomas  Rankin, 
Richard  Rodda,  Thomas  Wride,  Joseph  Cole,  Joseph  Taylor, 
James  Wood,  Benjamin  Rhoades,  Charles  Boon,  John  Barber, 
Joshua  Keighley,  Joseph  Harper,  William  Collins,  Thomas 
Tennant,  William  Ashman,  Simon  Day,  Thomas  Warwick, 
William  Myles,  Isaac  Brown,  Joseph  Pescod,  John  Moon,  John 
Peacock,  Christopher  Watkins,  William  Green,  John  Easton, 
George  Whitfield,  Parson  Greenwood." 

"  LONDON,  July  30,  1785. 

"  We,  whose  names  are  under  written,  but  who  were  not 
present  at  the  last  Bristol  Conference,  do  declare  our  appro- 
bation of  the  substance  and  design  of  the  deed  which  Mr. 
Wesley  has  lately  executed  and  enrolled  for.  the  purpose  of 
giving  a  legal  specification  of  the  phrase,  'The  Conference  of 
the  People  called  Methodists.' " 

Then  follow  the  names  of  thirty  preachers.1 
After  the  deed  had  been   enrolled,  some   of  the 
preachers  claimed  that  Mr.  Wesley  had,  by  the  en- 
rollment and  execution  of  the  Deed  of  Declaration, 


i  Minutes  1785,  Vol.  I,  pp.  181, 182;  Pelroe'i  Wesleyan  Polity,  3d  Ed., 
p  81. 


WEstEv's  DEED  OF  DECLARATION.  79 

given  up  the  power  he  previously  possessed  over  the 
societies;  but  Mr.  Wesley  soon  set  the  matter  at  rest 
by  making  the  following  statement : 

"No  power  which  I  ever  enjoyed  is  given  up  by 
the  Declaration  Deed.  No  such  thing  could  have 
been  supposed,  had  it  not  been  for  that  improper  and 
ambiguous  word  'life-estate/  This  also  has  given 
the  grand  occasion  of  offense  to  them  that  sought 
occasion." l 

The  deed  did  not  take  from  Mr.  Wesley  the  power 
he  had  exercised,  but  when  he  died  that  power 
passed  to  the  Conference. 

About  seven  years  after  the  execution  of  the 
deed,  John  Wesley,  on  the  2d  of  March,  1791,  at 
the  age  of  almost  eighty-eight  years,  passed  from 
a  life  of  toil,  suffering,  and  almost  unparalleled  suc- 
cess, to  the  sphere  of  eternal  reward,  leaving  behind 
him  in  vigorous  action  a  religious  and  ecclesiastical 
force  which  vivified  and  transformed  other  Churches 
when  he  was  alive,  and  since  his  death  has  penetrated 
to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  performing  a  similar  work 
as  well  as  building  up  great  Church  organizations. 
To  have  had  the  leadership  of  this  phenomenal 
organizer  and  marvelous  executive  was  an  incal- 
culable advantage,  and  the  Conference  which  took 
the  control  after  Mr.  Wesley's  death  showed  that 
its  members  had  profited  by  the  training  received 
under  him. 

The  first  meeting  of  that  Conference  after  Wesley's 
decease  was  a  memorable  one  in  many  respects.  One 

>  Minutes  1785,  Vol.  I,  p.  181 ;  Pelrce's  Wesleyan  Polity,  3d.  Ed.,  p.  SO. 


80     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

of  the  special  incidents  was  the  reading  of  the  letter 
Mr.  Wesley  had  left  in  the  care  of  Mr.  Joseph  Brad- 
ford. As  might  have  been  anticipated,  its  paternal 
tenderness  produced  a  profound  impression ;  and  after 
hearing  it,  the  Conference  passed  a  series  of  resolu- 
tions in  one  of  which  it  was  declared: 

"That  all  the  preachers  who  are  in  full  connec- 
tion with  them  shall  enjoy  every  privilege  that  the 
members  of  the  Conference  enjoy,  agreeably  to  the 
above  written  letter  of  our  venerable  deceased  father 
in  the  gospel." l 

So  the  legal  hundred  did  not  domineer  over  the 
other  preachers,  but,  at  the  very  first  Conference  held 
under  the  deed,  found  a  way  for  the  recognition  of  all 
the  ministers  in  full  connection,  even  if  they  were  not 
of  the  favored  hundred ;  and  in  later  years,  though  the 
legal  hundred  is  technically  the  legal  Conference,  yet 
practically  the  ministers  outside  the  hundred  have 
been  granted  a  voice  and  a  vote,  and,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  constitute  the  Conference;  but  the 
details  of  the  arrangement  do  not  fall  within  our 
province.2 

To  show  how  comprehensive  had  been  the  train- 
ing of  the  preachers  under  Wesley,  as  shown  in  the  es- 
tablished usages  and  the  Large  Minutes,  we  need  but 
refer  to  the  fact  that  at  this  first  Conference  after  the 
death  of  Wesley,  when  the  formal  question  was  asked, 
"  Is  it  necessary  to  enter  into  any  engagements  in  re- 

» Minutes  1791,  Vol.  I,  p.  242;  Peirce's  Wesleyan  Polity,  8d.  Ed.,  p.  32. 

*See  the  Ecclesiastical  Principles  and  Polity  of  the  Wesley  an 
Methodists,  by  William  Peirce,  revised  by  Frederick  J.  Jobson,  D.  D., 
8d  Ed.,  published  at  the  Wesleyan  Conference  Office,  London,  England. 


WESLEY'S  DEED  OF  DECLARATION.          81 

spect  to  our  future  plan  of  economy?"  the  answer  re- 
corded was,  "We  engage  to  follow  strictly  the  plan 
which  Mr.  Wesley  left  us  at  his  death."1 

Thus,  through  questions  concerning  property  and 
questions  relating  to  the  continuance  of  the  Meth- 
odist organization,  involving  both  preachers  and 
people,  the  Deed  of  Declaration  was  made.  By  it 
Wesley  perpetuated  the  Methodist  organization  in 
Great  Britain,  preserved  title  to  the  chapel  property, 
and  made  the  Conference  a  legally  incorporated  insti- 
tution, which  would  be  the  governing  body,  possess- 
ing legislative,  judicial,  and  executive  functions. 

When  Wesley  died  the  deed  came  into  full  force. 
With  the  active  deed,  the  legal  Conference  com- 
menced to  live,  and  Conference  government  in 
British  Methodism  began.  No  longer  should  one 
man  rule,  no  matter  how  good  or  great  he  might 
be;  but  the  body  of  the  preachers  would  control. 
Mr.  Wesley's  departure  was  the  end  of  personal  gov- 
ernment, and  the  incoming  of  Conference  government 
for  British  Methodism. 


'Mlnutei,  1791,  VoL  I,  p.  254;  Peirco'g  Wesleyan  Polity,  8d  Ed., 
p.  448. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  EARI/T  AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  DOWN  TO  1777 

THE  last  chapter  brought  us  to  the  year  1791, 
when  the  Rev.  John  Wesley  died,  and  the  Brit- 
ish Methodist  Conference  was  established  as  a  gov- 
erning power. 

Now  we  turn  our  thoughts  back  about  twenty- 
five  years,  and  look  across  the  Atlantic  to  America. 

Whitefield,  the  great  Calvinistic  Methodist,  sailed 
from  England  for  America  the  day  before  John  Wesley 
landed  in  England  on  his  return  from  Georgia,  in  1738.1 
This  was  Whitefield's  first  voyage  to  the  New  World; 
but  it  was  followed  by  many  other  visits,  which 
caused  him  to  cross  the  ocean  thirteen  times.  When 
in  America,  he  itinerated  through  the  country  along 
the  Atlantic  sea-board;  not  attempting  to  organize  a 
new  denomination,  but  reviving  existing  Churches, 
and  awakening  the  people  generally. 

Organized  Wesleyan  Methodism  was  not  intro- 
duced into  America  until  about  twenty-five  years 
after  the  organization  of  the  first  society  in  England. 
The  generally  accepted  date  is  1766,  though  some 
authorities  would  place  it  a  little  earlier.  • 

It  was  introduced  somewhat  irregularly;  that  is 
to  say,  it  did  not  begin  through  any  set  purpose  of 

i  Lake  Tyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  I,  p.  171. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.  83 

propagation  under,  any  official  authority,  or  by  regu- 
larly appointed  missionaries. 

As  to  what  person  introduced  Wesley  an  Method- 
ism into  America,  there  has  been  a  difference  of 
opinion.  Some  have  given  the  honor  to  Philip 
Embury,  acting  under  the  influence  of  Mrs.  Barbara 
Heck;  while  others  would  give  the  honor  to  Robert 
Strawbridge. 

Embury  came  from  a  colony  of  Germans,  who, 
fleeing  from  the  Palatinate  on  account  of  religious 
persecution,  had  settled  in  Ireland.  This  Irish  Pala- 
tine had  been  a  licensed  local  preacher  in  Ireland, 
and  began  to  preach  in  America  in  the  autumn 
of  1766.1  Robert  Strawbridge  also  was  an  Irish  local 
preacher,  and  probably  came  to  the  Colonies  about 
the  same  time  as  Embury ;  but  Mr.  Embury  began 
his  work  as  a  preacher  in  New  York  City,  while  Mr. 
Strawbridge  began  his  work  in  Maryland. 

The  first  chapel  in  New  York  was  built  in  1768, 
on  John  Street ;  and  this  was  called  Wesley  Chapel, 
or,  according  to  Jesse  Lee,  "  Wesley's  Chapel." 2 

Strawbridge  introduced  Methodism  into  Maryland, 
where  he  settled  on  Sams  Creek,  in  Frederick  County, 
and  immediately  opened  his  own  house  as  a  preaching- 
place.* 

>A.  Stevens,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Vol.  I. 
p.  54;  John  Atkinson,  Centennial  History  of  American  Method- 
ism, p.  9. 

*  Jesse  Lee,  A  Short  History  of  the  Methodists  In  the  United  States 
of  America,  Baltimore,  1810,  p.  25. 

» Lee's  History  of  Methodists,  p.  25;  Stevens's  History  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Vol.  I,  p.  73;  Atkinson,  Centennial 
History  of  Methodism,  p.  9;  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  1856,  p.  436; 
Lednum'8  Rlse.of  Methodism  In  America,  p.  16. 


84     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

George  M.  Roberts,  M.  D.,  a  distinguished  local 
preacher  of  Baltimore,  who  had  investigated  the  case 
with  great  care,  maintained  that  Strawbridge  began  to 
preach  in  his  own  house  as  early  as  1760,  and  that 
he  had  a  second  preaching-place  in  1762.1 

The  Rev.  William  Hamilton,  of  Baltimore,  in  his 
article  on  u  Early  Methodism  in  Maryland,"  published 
in  the  Methodist  Quarterly  Review  of  1856,  states  that 
under  Mr.  Strawbridge  "a  society  consisting  of 
twelve  or  fifteen  persons  was  formed  as  early  as  1763 
or  1764,  and  soon  after  a  place  of  worship  was 
erected  called  the  '  Log  Meeting-house/  about  a 
mile  from  the  residence  of  Mr.  Strawbridge."2  The 
Rev.  William  Fort  is  authority  for  the  statement  that 
"as  early  as  1762  or  1763,  Strawbridge  was  not  only 
preaching,  but  baptizing,  in  Frederick  County,"  and 
that  "  tradition  says  that  Strawbridge  was  ordained 
by  a  German  minister,  in  all  probability  by  Mr. 
Benedict  Swoope,  who  then  resided  in  that  region."3 

Bishop  Asbury,  in  his  journal,  under  date  of 
April  30,  1801,  says:  "We  arrived  to  dine  at  Alex- 
ander Warfield's,  on  Sams  Creek,  and  pushed  on 
to  Henry  Willis's,  on  Pipe  Creek,  where  it  had  been 
our  intention  to  open  Conference.  .  .  .  This  set- 
tlement of  Pipe  Creek  is  the  richest  in  the  State. 
Here  Mr.  Strawbridge  formed  the  first  society  in 


i  Roberta's  Letters  In  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  New  York, 
1858;  J.  Led MU in,  Rise  of  Methodism  in  America,  Philadelphia, 
1859,  p.  15. 

»  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  1856,  p.  436. 

*  Fort's  article  In  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  New  York, 
July  10,  1844. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.  85 

Maryland — and  America;"  and,  showing  how  much 
importance  he  attached  to  the  declaration,  Asbury 
italicizes  the  words  "  and  America." l 

This,  however,  is  not  the  place  to  settle  this  dis- 
puted point  as  to  the  priority  of  the  work  of  Embury 
or  Strawbridge.2 

We  refer  to  Strawbridge  particularly  because  of 
his  great  influence  in  the  early  days,  and  especially 
because  of  his  historic  importance  in  connection  with 
the  early  Conferences. 

Captain  Webb,  of  the  British  Army,  who  de- 
lighted in  his  Greek  Testament,  was  another  local 
preacher,  who  for  years  rendered  incalculable  service 
to  American  Methodism  in  its  initial  period.  These 
three  local  preachers,  Embury,  Strawbridge,  and 
Webb,  laid  the  foundations  of  Wesleyan  Methodism 
in  the  new  country.  Under  them  the  work  grew, 
and  soon  there  were  regularly  organized  societies  in 
New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Maryland,  and  requests 
were  sent  to  Mr.  Wesley  for  regularly  appointed 
preachers. 

In  1769,  the  very  year  Wesley  first  introduced 


i  Asbury's  Journal,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  27. 

•For  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  subject,  pro  and  con,  see  Rev.  Wm. 
Fort's  communication  In  th«  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  isu  ; 
Hamilton'*  Early  Methodism  in  Maryland,  Methodist  Quarterly  Re- 
view, New  York,  July,  1856,  pp.  431-448 ;  J.  B.  Wakeley,  Lost  Chapters 
from  Early  History  of  American  Methodism,  New  York,  18.58  pp. 
158-189;  Robert*,  Letters  In  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  New 
York,  1858;  John  Led  num.  Rise  of  Methodism  In  America,  Philadel- 
phia, 1859,  pp.  15-23;  Abel  Stevens,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  New  York,  1865,  pp.  47-80 ;  John  Atkinson,  Centennial  History 
of  American  Methodism,  New  York,  1884,  pp.  9-18.  Wakeley  »nd  Ste- 
vens (rant  priority  to  Embury.  Dr.  Atkiuson  leans  In  that  direction 
but  the  others  favor  Sirawbridge. 


86     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

his  plan  for  the  perpetuity  of  the  British  Conference, 
his  thoughts  turned  toward  America,  as  though  anx- 
ious to  give  permanence  to  Methodism  on  both  sides 
of  the  ocean. 

At  this  Conference  Richard  Boardman  and  Joseph 
Pilmoor  were  appointed  to  go  to  America,  and  these 
were  the  first  regularly  appointed  Methodist  preach- 
ers in  America.  Pilmoor  had  been  educated  at  Wes- 
ley's Kingswood  School,1  and  had  been  a  regular 
preacher  four  years.  As  Mr.  Boardman  had  been  an 
itinerant  preacher  six  years,  he  ranked  as  the  senior. 

At  the  very  time  they  were  crossing  the  Atlantic, 
Whitefield  was  making  his  final  voyage  to  America,2 
and  in  May  of  the  next  year,  Whitefield,  journeying 
northward,  passed  through  Philadelphia,  and,  saluting 
Wesley's  missionaries,  expressed  his  satisfaction  at 
finding  them  in  this  country.8  Then  he  went  North, 
and  died,  on  the  30th  of  September,  at  Newburyport, 
Massachusetts.  About  this  time  the  preachers  received 
re-enforcements  in  the  persons  of  Robert  Williams  and 
John  King,  both  of  whom  came  from  England. 
Williams  was  a  local  preacher,  and  had  permission 
from  Wesley  to  labor  under  the  missionaries  he  had 
sent,4  but  John  King  was  without  a  license.  This, 
however,  did  not  deter  him  from  preaching,  and  in  a 
short  time  he  was  regularly  licensed.  Both  proved  to 
be  exceedingly  useful,  and  Robert  Williams  has  the 


i  Steven*,  Hist,  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Vol.  I,  p.  OS. 
«  A.  Stevens,  Hist,  of  M.  E.  Ch.,  Vol.  I.  p.  101. 
•  Jesse  Lee,  Short  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  30. 
« Lee's  History  of  Methodist*,  pp.  26,  27. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.  87 

peculiar  distinction  of  being  the  first  Methodist 
preacher  in  America,  to  marry,  to  locate,  and  to  die.1 

This  year,  1770,  "America"  appeared  for  the 
first  time,  in  Wesley's  list  of  appointments,  and  had 
in  connection  with  it  four  names:  Joseph  Pilmoor, 
Richard  Boardman,  Robert  Williams,  and  John  King.2 

The  work  grew  rapidly,  and  soon  the  demand  for 
service  was  greater  than  the  ability  of  the  mission- 
aries to  respond.  So,  in  the  spring  of  1770,  Pilmoor 
wrote  a  letter  to  Wesley  and  his  Conference  in 
England,  urging  other  ministers  to  come  to  the  help 
of  those  in  the  Colonies.  Among  other  things,  he 
states  that  Mr.  Boardman  and  himself  "are  chiefly 
confined  to  the  cities,  and  therefore  can  not,  at  pres- 
ent, go  much  into  the  country,  as  we  have  more  work 
upon  our  hands  than  we  are  able  to  perform.  There 
is  work  enough  for  two  preachers  in  each  place,  and  if 
two  of  our  brethren  would  come  over,  I  believe  it 
would  be  attended  with  great  blessing."  3 

We  are  not  surprised,  therefore,  to  find  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, in  1771,  sending  two  other  missionaries;  namely, 
Francis  Asbury  and  Richard  Wright.  Wright  had 
been  an  itinerant  preacher  only  one  year,  and  so  was 
outranked  by  Asbury,  who  had  been  a  regular 
preacher  four  years,  he  having  entered  the  itinerant 
ranks  in  1766,  the  very  year  Embury  began  to  preach 
in  New  York. 

Boardman  and  Pilmoor  having  thus  been  aided, 


>  Leroy  M.  Lee's  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  p.  55. 

*  A.  Stevens,  Hist,  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Vol.  I,  p.  110. 

•  Arminian  Magazine,  1784,  p.  223. 


88     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

we  find  their  making  more  extensive  tours.  In 
April,  1772,  it  was  decided  that  Mr.  Pilmoor  should 
travel  south,  and  Mr.  Boardman  should  visit  the 
North.1  Asbury,  in  his  journal,  under  the  date  of 
April  2,  1772,  refers  to  this.  He  says:  "I  came  to 
Philadelphia,  and  finding  Brother  B.  [Boardman]  and 
Brother  W.  [Wright]  there,  was  much  comforted. 
Brother  B.'s  [Boardman's]  plan  was  that  he  should  go 
to  Boston  ;  Brother  P.  [Pilmoor]  to  Virginia;  Brother 
W.  [Wright]  to  York  [New  York];  and  that  I 
should  stay  three  months  in  Philadelphia.  With  this 
I  am  well  pleased."  2 

That  year  "Mr.  Pilmoor  traveled  and  preached 
through  Maryland  to  Norfolk,  in  Virginia ;  and  left 
Norfolk  in  the  beginning  of  1773,  and  traveled  through 
the  lower  parts  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  to 
Charleston,  in  South  Carolina;  and  from  thence  to 
Savannah,  in  Georgia ;  and  then  to  the  Orphan  House, 
which  was  begun  by  Mr.  Whitefield,  in  March,  1740; 
after  which  he  returned  again  to  the  North,  some  time 
in  the  following  spring.  Mr.  Boardman  went  as  far 
to  the  north  as  Boston,  and  then  returned  to  New 
York."3  Dr.  Bangs  states  not  only  that  Mr.  Board- 
man preached  in  Boston,  but  also  that  he  "  formed  a 
small  society"  in  that  place.4  In  the  autumn  of  1772 
an  administrative  change  of  considerable  moment 
was  made.  Asbury,  in  his  Journal  for  October  10th, 


i  Lee's  History  of  the  Methodists,  p.  3*. 
1  Asbury's  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  13. 
•Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  pp.  89,  40. 

«  Nathan  Bangs,  D.  D.,  History  of  Methodist.  Episcopal  Church,  1887, 
VoL  I,  p.  73. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.  89 

of  tliis  year,  says :  "  I  received  a  letter  from  Mr. 
Wesley,  in  which  he  required  a  strict  attention  to 
discipline,  and  appointed  me  to  act  as  assistant.  He 
also  enjoined  that  Mr.  W.  [Williams]  might  not  print 
any  more  books  without  his  consent."  ! 

Bangs,  referring  to  this,  uses  the  title  "  general 
assistant," 2  but  that  title  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
used  until  a  later  date.  Asbury  merely  says  he  was 
appointed  "  to  act  as  assistant." 

As  already  observed,  in  England,  so  in  America, 
at  this  time  there  were  grades  among  the  preachers. 
Some  were  called  assistants,  and  some  were  called 
helpers.  As  Lee  explains :  "  The  helper  was  the  young 
preacher  in  each  circuit  where  there  were  generally 
two  preachers  in  a  circuit.  The  assistant  was  the 
oldest  preacher  in  the  circuit,  who  had  the  charge  of 
the  young  preacher  and  of  the  business  of  the 
circuit."8 

On  the  19th  of  the  same  month,  Asbury  says  that 
at  Princeton  he  "  met  Mr.  B.  [Boardman],  and  we 
both  agreed  in  judgment  about  the  affairs  of  the  so- 
ciety."* Dr.  Stevens,  alluding  to  this,  speaks  of 
Boardman  as  having  been  "  reduced  from  an  '  assist- 
ant' to  a  '  helper.'  "tt  This,  however,  depends  upon 
the  status  of  the  work  at  that  time.  Subsequently 
there  were  many  "  assistants  "  and  the  appointment  of 
a  new  one  did  not  necessarily  mean  the  deposition  of 

» Asbury's  Journal,  New  York.  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  29. 

•  Bangs,  History  of  Methodist    Episcopal  Church,  1857,  VoL  I,  p.  74. 
i  Jesse  Lee,  Hist,  of  Methodists,  Bait.,  1810,  p.  41. 

« Anbury's  Journal,  New  York,  1X21,  Vol.  i,  p.  30. 

•  Stevens,  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  1865,  VoL  I,  p.  131. 

7 


90     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

an  old  one.  At  that  very  time,  in  England,  there 
was  a  large  number  of  "assistants."  If  America  at 
that  time  had  a  number  of  circuits,  then  there  might 
have  been  an  "assistant"  for  each  circuit.  Mr. 
Wesley,  however,  seems  to  have  considered  all 
America  as  one  circuit,  and  it  would  appear  that  Mr. 
Asbury's  work  was  of  a  general  character. 

If  Mr.  Boardman  was  reduced,  one  would  nat- 
urally ask,  Why  ?  for  he  was  an  older  man  and  had 
been  longer  in  the  ministry  than  Mr.  Asbury.  Mr. 
Wesley  thought  well  of  him ;  for  after  his  decease  he 
referred  to  him  as  "  a  pious,  good-natured,  sensible 
man,  greatly  beloved  of  all  that  knew  him,"1  and 
proposed  for  his  tombstone  an  epitaph  containing 
these  lines: 

"  With  zeal  for  God,  with  love  of  souls  inspired, 
Nor  awed  by  dangers  nor  by  labors  tired, 
Boardman  in  distant  worlds  proclaims  the  word 
To  multitudes,  and  turns  them  to  his  Lord."  • 

Asbury  was  a  very  positive  character,  and  was 
not  long  in  asserting  himself  after  he  arrived  in 
America.  He  landed  in  Philadelphia  oil  the  27th 
day  of  October,  177 1.8 

On  the  12th  of  November  he  set  out  for  New 
York,  where  he  found  Richard  Boardman  "  in  peace, 
but  weak  in  body."4  On  the  20th  of  the  same 
mouth,  after  he  had  been  in  New  York  only  about 
eight  days  and  in  the  country  only  about  twenty-four 


i  Wesley '•  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  New  York,  1863,  Vol.  VII,  p.  483. 

•  Id.,  p.  156. 

•  Anbury '•  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  4.    *ld.,p.5. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.        91 

days,  he  makes  this  note  in  his  journal:  "Tuesday, 
20th,  I  remain  in  York  [New  York],  though  unsatis- 
fied with  our  being  both  in  town  together.  I  have 
not  yet  the  thing  which  I  seek — a  circulation  of 
preachers  to  avoid  partiality  and  popularity.  How- 
ever, I  am  fixed  to  the  Methodist  plan,  and  do  what  I 
do  faithfully  as  to  God.  I  expect  trouble  is  at  hand. 
This  I  expected  when  I  left  England,  and  I  am 
willing  to  suffer — yea,  to  die — sooner  than  betray 
so  good  a  cause  by  any  means.  It  will  be  a  hard 
matter  to  stand  against  all  opposition  as  an  iron 
pillar  strong,  and  steadfast  as  a  wall  of  brass; 
but,  through  Christ  strengthening  me,  I  can  do 
all  things."1 

What  does  all  this  mean?  One  might  infer  that 
he  was  being  strongly  antagonized.  Surely  it  could 
not  be  by  Mr.  Boardman,  for  only  seven  days  before 
he  wrote  in  his  journal :  "My  friend  B.  [Boardman] 
is  a  kind,  loving,  worthy  man,  truly  amiable  and  en- 
tertaining, and  of  a  child-like  temper." 

On  the  22d  he  writes :  "  At  present  I  am  dissatis- 
fied. I  judge  we  are  to  be  shut  up  in  the  cities  this 
winter.  My  brethren  seem  unwilling  to  leave  the 
cities,  but  I  think  I  shall  show  them  the  way.  I  am 
in  trouble,  and  more  trouble  is  at  hand,  for  I  am  de- 
termined to  make  a  stand  against  all  partiality.  I 
have  nothing  to  seek  but  the  glory  of  God,  nothing 
to  fear  but  his  displeasure.  I  am  come  over  with  an 
upright  intention,  and  through  the  grace  of  God  1 
will  make  it  appear."  f 

>  Anbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  0.       *lbid. 


92     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

He  talks  very  much  more  like  a  chief  than  a 
helper.  Mr.  Boardruan  was  the  "  assistant "  who 
was  empowered  to  direct,  and  Mr.  Asbury  was  the 
"  helper,"  who  should  carry  out  the  directions,  ac- 
cording to  "  the  Methodist  plan  "  to  which  he  alludes. 
But  Mr.  Asbury  appears  to  see  that  things  are  not 
properly  managed,  and  he  puts  upon  himself  the 
burden  of  finding  a  remedy. 

As  to  staying  in  the  cities,  Mr.  Pilmoor  had 
mentioned  that  very  matter  in  his  letter  to  Mr. 
Wesley,  and  indicated  that  they  needed  more  men  in 
order  to  enable  them  to  travel  as  freely  as  they  de- 
sired; and  we  find,  in  harmony  with  this,  that  not 
long  after  the  arrival  of  Asbury  and  Wright,  both 
Mr.  Boardman  and  Mr.  Pilmoor  start  on  and  prose- 
cute long  journeys  to  the  North  and  the  South. 

Now  Mr.  Asbury  is  actually  in  the  position  of 
"  assistant,"  and  has  an  opportunity  to  see  what  he 
can  do  as  the  authorized  manager  of  the  work  and 
superintendent  of  the  preachers.  Of  executive  abil- 
ity he  soon  proved  that  he  possessed  an  abundance; 
and  with  it  was  joined  great  activity  and  power  of 
long  sustained  exertion. 

He  quickly  flew  from  point  to  point,  preaching 
frequently,  holding  quarterly  meetings,  and  endeavor- 
ing to  enforce  discipline. 

At  that  time  there  were  no  Annual  Conferences, 
and  "the  preachers  regulated  their  business  at  the 
different  quarterly  meetings,"  l  which  were  held  here 


>  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  4L 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.  9o 

and  there  to  accommodate  the  preachers  and  societies 
within  easy  reach. 

The  first  quarterly  meeting  of  which  we  have  any 
record  was  held  on  the  western  shore  of  Maryland. 
Mr.  Asbury,  in  his  journal  for  Tuesday,  Decembei 
23,  1772,  says  he  "set  off  for  J.  P.'s  [J.  Presbury's] 
to  attend  our  quarterly  meeting.  Many  people  at- 
tended, and  several  friends  came  many  miles.  I 
preached  from  Acts  xx,  28 :  '  Take  heed  therefore 
unto  yourselves/  etc. "  Then  he  remarks : 

11  We  afterwards  proceeded  to  our  temporal  business,  and 
considered  the  following  propositions: 

"1.  What  are  our  collections?  We  found  them  sufficient 
to  defray  our  expenses. 

"2.  How  are  the  preachers  stationed?  Brother  S.  [Straw- 
bridge]  and  Brother  0.  [Owen],  in  Frederick  County  [Western 
Shore  of  Maryland] ;  Brother  K.  [King] ,  Brother  W.  [Web- 
ster] ,  and  I.  R  [Isaac  Rollins] ,  on  the  other  side  of  the  bay 
[Eastern  Shore] ;  and  myself  in  Baltimore. 

"  3.  Shall  we  be  strict  in  our  society  meetings,  and  no\  ad- 
mit strangers  ?  Agreed. 

"4.  Shall  we  drop  preaching  in  the  day-time  through  the 
week?  Not  agreed  to. 

"  5.  Will  the  people  be  contented  without  our  administer- 
ing the  sacrament?  J.  K.  [John  King]  was  neuter;  Brother 
8.  [Strawbridge]  pleaded  much  for  the  ordinances,  and  so  did 
the  people,  who  appeared  to  be  much  biased  by  him.  I  told 
them  I  would  not  agree  to  it  at  that  time,  and  insisted  on  our 
abiding  by  our  rules.  But  Mr.  B.  [Boardman]  had  given  them 
their  way  at  the  quarterly  meeting  held  here  before,  and  I  was 
obliged  to  connive  at  some  things  for  the  sake  of  peace. 

"  6.  Shall  we  make  collections  weekly,  to  pay  the  preachers' 
board  and  expenses  ?  This  was  not  agreed  to. 

"  We  then  inquired  into  the  moral  character  of  the  preach- 
ers and  exhorters.  Only  one  exhorter  was  found  any  way 
doubtful,  and  we  have  great  hopes  of  him.  Brother  8.  [Straw* 


94    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

bridge]  received  £8  quarterage;  Brother  K.  [King]  and  my- 
self, £6  each. 

"  Great  love  subsisted  among  us  in  this  meeting,  and  we 
parted  in  peace."  * 

Here  we  have  the  question  of  the  administration 
of  the  sacraments  by  the  Methodist  preachers  of  that 
day.  It  is  evident  that  Strawbridge  had  been  offici- 
ating in  this  matter,  and  that  the  Methodist  people  of 
that  section  wanted  the  sacraments  from  their  own 
preachers.  Mr.  Asbury  "  would  not  agree  to  it  at 
that  time,"  and  criticises  Mr.  Boardman  because  he 
"  had  given  them  their  way."  Then  this  strict  disci- 
plinarian surprises  us  by  acknowledging  that  he 
"  was  obliged  to  connive  at  some  things  for  the  sake 
of  peace."  It  was  doubtless  a  concession  to  the  great 
local  influence  of  Mr.  Strawbridge. 

It  will  also  be  observed  that  the  appointments 
for  the  preachers  were  announced  at  the  quarterly 
meetings. 

Mr.  Asbury  appears  to  have  made  it  a  point  to 
visit  the  different  quarterly  meetings,  very  much  as 
the  presiding  elders  of  more  modern  times. 

The  next  quarterly  meeting  of  which  Mr.  Asbury 
gives  an  account  was  held  at  the  same  place  on  the 
30th  of  March,  1773.  His  entry  in  his  journal  is  as 
follows : 

"Tuesday,  30th.  Our  quarterly  meeting  began.  After  T 
had  preached,  we  proceeded  to  business;  and  in  our  little 
conference  the  following  queries  were  propounded,  viz: 

"1.  Are  there  no  disorderly  persons  in  our  classes?  It 
was  thought  not 


>  Afibury '•  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  pp.  87  and  38. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.  95 

"  2.  Does  not  dram-drinking  too  much  prevail  among  our 
people  ? 

"  3.  Do  none  contract  debts  without  due  care  to  pay  them  ? 
We  found  that  this  evil  is  much  avoided  among  our  people. 

"  4.  Are  the  band-meetings  kept  up  ? 

"5.  Is  there  nothing  immoral  in  any  of  our  preachers? 

"  6.  What  preachers  travel  now,  and  where  are  they 
stationed  ? 

"  It  was  then  urged  that  none  must  break  our  rules,  under 
the  penalty  of  being  excluded  from  our  connection. 

"  All  was  settled  in  the  most  amicable  manner. 

"  Mr.  S.  [Strawbridge]  preached  a  good  and  useful  sermon 
from  Joel  ii,  17 ;  '  Let  the  priests,  the  ministers  of  the  Lord, 
weep  between  the  porch  and  the  altar,'  etc. 

"  Many  people  were  present  at  our  love-feast,  among  whom 
were  many  strangers;  but  all  were  deeply  serious,  and  the 
power  of  God  was  present  indeed.  Brother  O.  [Owen] 
preached  a  very  alarming  sermon,  and  Brother  S.  [Strawbridge] 
gave  a  moving  exhortation.  The  whole  ended  in  great  peace, 
and  we  all  went,  in  the  strength  of  the  Lord,  to  our  several 
appointments." l 

These  two  specimens  give  a  fair  idea  of  the  style 
of  quarterly  meetings  in  that  period.  There  were 
the  sermons  and  the  love-feast,  and  the  old  fashion  of 
one  preacher  following  the  sermon  of  another  with 
an  exhortation.  It  will  be  noticed  that  there  was  a 
very  decided  variation  in  the  questions,  showing  that 
there  was  no  settled  form.  In  the  report  of  the  sec- 
ond meeting  the  answers  to  some  of  the  questions  are 
not  given,  and  there  is  no  mention  of  the  sacramental 
question.  Possibly  the  latter  was  omitted  "  for  the 
sake  of  peace." 

The  year  1773  marks  an  epoch  in  both  English 
and  American  Methodism.  It  will  be  remembered 


»  Asbury'f  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p. 


96     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

that  in  the  English  Conference  of  this  year,  Wesley 
reiutroduced  the  plan  of  1769  for  continuing  and 
empowering  that  Conference,  so  as  to  perpetuate 
British  Methodism.  The  same  year  he  sent  to 
America  two  preachers,  one  of  whom  Lad  much  to 
do  in  molding  the  Methodist  organism  in  this 
country.  At  the  English  Conference,  held  in 
August,  1772,  Captain  Webb  appeared,  and  earnestly 
appealed  for  preachers  to  go  to  America.  Prior  to 
this,  the  old  soldier  urged  the  appointment  of  Chris- 
topher Hopper,  one  of  Wesley's  ablest  and  most  re- 
liable men,  and  the  cultured  Joseph  Benson,  whom 
Dr.  Adam  Clarke  called  "  a  sound  scholar,  a  powerful 
and  able  preacher,  and  a  profound  theologian." 
Charles  Wesley,  however,  opposed  this,  and  was  so 
surprised  at  the  zealous  captain's  picture  of  the  pos- 
sibilities in  the  new  continent  that  he  pronounced  him 
fanatical.1  His  appeal  to  the  Conference  so  stirred 
the  preachers,  that  Thomas  Rankin  and  George  Shad- 
ford  offered  themselves  to  go  the  following  spring.1 

George  Shadford  had  been  itinerant  preacher  five 
years.  Thomas  Rankin  had  been  a  regular  preacher 
eleven  years.  Wesley  reposed  great  confidence  in 
Rankin,  even  taking  him  as  his  traveling  companion. 
Raukin  was  born  in  Scotland,  in  1738,  so  that  when 
he  came  as  a  preacher  to  America  he  was  about 
thirty-five  years  of  age.  He  had,  in  his  younger 
days,  prepared  to  enter  the  College  at  Edinburgh,* 


»  A.  Stevens,  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Vol.  I,  p.  142. 

*  Methodist  Magazine,  London,  1816,  p.  645. 

*  McClintock  and  Strong's  Encyclopaedia. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.  97 

so  that  he  had  the  foundations  of  a  good  education. 
Circumstances,  however,  diverted  him  from  his  orig- 
inal purpose,  and  he  sailed  for  America  to  engage  in 
a  commercial  enterprise;  but  he  soon  returned  to  his 
native  land.  He  became  "  one  of  the  commanding 
men  of  the  Wesleyan  Ministry,"  and  "an  experienced 
disciplinarian."  ' 

One  writing,  in  1770,  of  a  visit  of  Wesley  to 
Leeds,  interjects  this  mention  :  "  Mr.  Rankin,  who 
travels  with  him,  is  a  blessed  man,  and  seems  to  fear 
no  one's  face."  2 

This  was  the  man  whom  Wesley  appointed  his 
general  assistant  for  America,  giving  him  charge  of 
all  the  preachers  and  societies  in  the  Colonies. 
Stevens  suggests  that  "  Wesley  judged  him  competent 
to  manage  the  difficulties  which  had  arisen  under  the 
administration  of  Asbury,  as  represented  in  the  cor- 
respondence of  the  latter,"3  and  Bangs  says:  "It 
seems  that,  notwithstanding  the  vigilance  of  Mr. 
Asbury  in  correcting  those  abuses  which  had  arisen 
from  the  laxity  with  which  discipline  had  been  ad- 
ministered, many  disorders  still  existed  for  which  an 
adequate  remedy  had  not  been  provided.  These 
things  had  been  communicated  to  Mr.  Wesley,  and 
he  therefore  clothed  Mr.  Rankin  with  powers  superior 
to  any  which  had  been  vested  in  his  predecessors  in 
office."  *  Samuel  Drew,  in  his  Life  of  Dr.  Coke, 


>  A.  Stevens,  History  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Vol.  I,  p,  142. 
1  K  Tyerman,  Life  of  John  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  69. 
•  A.  Stevens,  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Vol.  I,  p.  142. 
«  N.  Bangs,  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  1857,  Vol.  I.  p.80. 


98     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

probably  suggests  the  cause  of  the  lack  of  discipline, 
when  he  says: 

"  Mi  Asbury,  on  his  arrival,  soon  perceived  that 
the  work  which  had  been  so  happily  begun,  was  con- 
fined chiefly  to  the  larger  towns;  but  that,  under  proper 
regulations,  it  was  susceptible  of  a  much  greater 
extension,  if  carried  into  the  villages  and  secluded 
plantations  that  were  scattered  throughout  the  country. 
To  these  departments  he  therefore  devoted  his  time 
and  talents ;  and,  in  the  blessing  which  attended  his 
ministry  and  the  great  success  which  he  found  in  the 
formation  of  societies,  he  thought  himself  amply  re- 
warded for  all  the  inconveniences  with  which  his 
solitary  excursions  were  attended.  But  while  he  was 
thus  engaged  in  visiting  the  plantations  and  villages,  an 
undue  eagerness  to  extend  the  work  in  the  towns  had 
unhappily  led  to  a  comparative  neglect  of  discipline. 
Some  apprehensions  of  this  seem  to  have  been  antici- 
pated in  England."  * 

In  other  words,  Asbury  had  undertaken  an  ex- 
pansion which  prevented  his  strengthening  the  cen- 
ters. Wesley  intrenched  himself  in  the  cities  and 
towns,  giving  them  special  care;  and  from  these 
strong  centers  extended  into  the  country.  Even  in 
Asbury 's  day  the  center  of  influence  was  the  city ; 
much  more  is  it  to-day,  and  the  Church  or  cause  that 
would  be  potent  must  be  strong  in  the  cities. 

Thomas  Rankin,  the  reliable,  was  sent  by  Wesley 
to  set  in  order  the  affairs  of  American  Methodism, 

>  Samuel  Drew,  Life  of  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.  P.,  1817,  Amer.  Ed., 
New  York,  1847,  p.  61. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.  99 

and  to  carry  forward  its  work ;  and,  as  Jesse  Lee  ob- 
serves, "From  that  time,  Mr.  Ilankin  had  the  suptr- 
intendency  of  the  Methodist  connection  in  America, 
and  was  styled  the  general  assistant." l 

Mr.  llankin  was  the  first  to  bear  this  title.  Before 
his  coming,  no  preacher  in  America  had  any  higher 
title  than  that  of  assistant.  General  assistant  im- 
plied something  more.  The  assistant  had  charge  of 
the  circuit  and  the  preachers  who  were  associated 
with  him  on  the  circuit,  and  he  was  limited  to  his 
circuit ;  but  the  title  of  general  assistant  implied  that 
there  were  a  number  of  circuits  with  their  assist- 
ants, and  that  the  person  bearing  this  title  had 
general  charge  of  the  entire  work,  including  the 
assistants. 

This  new  appointment  reveals  the  fact  that  Wes- 
ley's control  in  America  was  regarded  as  supreme. 
He  appointed  and  recalled  preachers  at  pleasure,  and, 
at  his  pleasure,  elevated  one  and  deposed  another. 
So  Asbury,  from  being  for  a  brief  period  the  chief 
over  others  in  America,  becomes,  by  Wesley's  act,  a 
subordinate  to  the  recently  appointed  general  as- 
sistant. 

In  the  beginning  of  June,  1773,  Thomas  Rank  in 
and  George  Shadford  landed  at  Philadelphia;  and 
"  immediately  after  Mr.  E-ankin's  arrival  in  Philadel- 
phia, he  called  the  traveling  preachers  together."2 
This  was  the  call  for  the  first  Conference  of  Ameri- 
can Methodist  preachers,  and  the  Conference  met  in 
Philadelphia. 

>  J  esae  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  45.       •  Jbid. 


100  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

The  printed  Minutes  say  this  Conference  was  held 
in  June,  1773 ;  but  Asbury  says  the  Conference  began 
on  Wednesday,  the  14th  of  July.  The  precise  entry 
is:  "Wednesday  14.  Our  General  Conference  be- 
gan." 1  This  note  is  peculiar  also  from  the  fact  that 
here  for  the  first  time  we  find  the  phrase  "General 
Conference,"  Asbury  apparently  using  it  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  local  quarterly  meetings  or  Quar- 
terly Conferences  which  had  heretofore  been  held 
in  America. 

Rankin  records  that  "there  were  present  seven 
preachers,  besides  Boardman  and  Pilmoor,  who  were 
to  return  to  England."  Asbury  did  not  arrive  until 
the  second  day,  and  Dr.  Stevens  counts  him  as  the 
tenth  member  present.2  Mr.  Asbury  says:  "Came 
safe  to  the  city  on  Thursday,  but  did  not  find  such 
perfect  harmony  as  I  could  wish  for."3  What  the 
discord  was  he  does  not  mention,  but  leaves  us  to 
infer  or  imagine. 

The  Minutes  of  that  first  Yearly  Conference  are 
very  brief.  The  heading  in  the  printed  copy  is  as 
follows : 

"  Minutes  of  Some  Conversations  between  the  Preachers 
in  Connection  with  the  Reverend  Mr.  John  Wesley.  Phila- 
delphia, June,  1773." 

i 

Then  follows  the  body  of  the  Minutes,  in  the 
form  of  question  and  answer. 


i  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  56.    For  fuller  statement  see  A. 
Stevens,  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  1865,  Vol.  I,  p.  161. 

*  A.  Stevens,  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Vol.  I,  p.  160. 

*  Asbury 'a  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  65. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.         101 

"  The  following  queries  were  proposed  to  every  preacher : 

"  1.  Ought  not  the  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  that  Con- 
ference to  extend  to  the  preachers  and  people  in  America,  as 
well  as  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  ? 

"  Ana.  Yes. 

"2.  Ought  not  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  Method- 
ists, as  contained  in  the  Minutes,  to  be  the  sole  rule  of  our  con- 
duct, who  labor  in  the  connection  with  Mr.  Wesley,  in  America? 

"Ant.  Yes. 

"  3.  If  so,  does  it  not  follow,  that  if  any  preachers  deviate 
from  the  Minutes,  we  can  have  no  fellowship  with  them  till 
they  change  their  conduct? 

"Ana.  Yes. 

"  The  following  rules  were  agreed  to  by  all  the  preachers 
present: 

"  1.  Every  preacher  who  acts  in  connection  with  Mr. 
Wesley  and  the  brethren  who  labor  in  America,  is  strictly  to 
avoid  administering  the  ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

"2.  All  the  people  among  whom  we  labor  to  be  earnestly 
exhorted  to  attend  the  Church,  and  to  receive  the  ordinances 
there;  but  in  a  particular  manner,  to  press  the  people  in 
Maryland  and  Virginia  to  the  observance  of  this  minute. 

"3.  No  person  or  persons  to  be  admitted  into  our  love- 
feasts  oftener  than  twice  or  thrice,  unless  they  become  mem- 
bers ;  and  none  to  be  admitted  to  the  society  meetings  more 
than  twice. 

"4.  None  of  the  preachers  in  America  to  reprint  any  of 
Mr.  Wesley's  books  without  his  authority  (when  it  can  be 
gotten)  and  the  consent  of  their  brethren. 

"5.  Robert  Williams  to  sell  the  books  he  has  already 
printed,  but  to  print  no  more,  unless  under  the  above  re- 
strictions. 

"  6.  Every  preacher  who  acts  as  an  assistant,  to  Bend 
an  account  of  the  work  once  in  six  months  to  the  general 
assistant. 

"  Qua.  1.  How  are  the  preachers  stationed  ? 

"  Ans.— 

"  New  York,  Thomas  Rankin,       •> 

"Philadelphia,George  Shadford,  / to  chanSe  ln  four  months. 


102  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"  New  Jersey,  John  King,  William  Walters. 

"  Baltimore   I Francis  Asbury,  Robert  Strawbridge, 

/  Abraham  Whitworth,  Joseph  Yearbry. 
"  Norfolk,  Richard  Wright. 
"  Petersburg,  Robert  Williams. 
"  Ques.  2.  What  members  are  there  in  the  society? 
"  An*.— 


New  York 180 

Philadelphia 180 

New  Jersey 200 


Maryland 500 

Virginia 100 


Preachers,  10.    Total- 1,160 

The  Minutes  of  this  Conference  were  written  and 
were  kept  in  manuscript  as  was  the  case  with  those 
of  succeeding  Conferences,  and  "  none  of  the  Annual 
Minutes  were  published  until  the  year  1785,"  after 
which  the  Minutes  were  printed  annually.  "  How- 
ever, in  the  year  1795,"  says  Jesse  Lee,  "  we  had 
all  the  Minutes  from  1773  to  that  time  published  and 
bound  in  one  book."1 

Being  the  first  Annual  Conference,  the  Minutes 
have  a  special  interest,  and  that  interest  will  be  deep- 
ened by  Asbury's  memoranda.  He  says : 

"  The  following  propositions  were  agreed  to : 

"  1.  The  old  Methodist  doctrine  and  discipline  shall  be  en- 
forced and  maintained  amongst  all  our  societies  in  America. 

"2.  Any  preacher  who  acts  otherwise,  can  not  be  retained 
amongst  us  as  a  fellow-laborer  in  the  vineyard. 

"3.  No  preacher  in  our  connection  shall  be  permitted  to 
administer  the  ordinances  at  this  time,  except  Mr.  S.  [Straw- 
bridge],  and  he  under  the  particular  direction  of  the  assistant. 

"4.  No  person  shall  be  admitted  more  than  once  or  twice 
to  our  love-feasts  or  society  meetings  without  becoming  a 
member. 

"5.  No  preacher  shall  be  permitted  to  print  our  books 


>  Jesse  Lee,  Hist,  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  45. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.         103 

without  the  approbation  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  consent  of  his 
brethren.  And  that  R.  W.  [Robert  Williams],  shall  be  allowed 
to  sell  what  he  has,  but  reprint  no  more. 

"  6.  Every  assistant  is  to  send  an  account  of  the  work  of 
God  in  his  circuit  to  the  general  assistant. 

"  There  were  some  debates  amongst  the  preachers  in  this 
Conference  relative  to  the  conduct  of  some  who  had  mani- 
fested a  desire  to  abide  in  the  cities  and  live  like  gentlemen. 
Three  years  out  of  four  have  been  already  spent  in  the  cities. 
It  was  also  feared  that  money  had  been  wasted,  improper 
leaders  appointed,  and  many  of  our  rules  broken."  * 

Jesse  Lee,  in  his  summary  of  the  Minutes,  also  makes 
some  points  a  little  clearer.  For  example,  instead  of 
using  in  the  first  paragraph  the  words  "  that  Confer- 
ence "  as  in  the  printed  Minutes,  he  uses  the  phrase 
"  the  English  Conference ;"  and  in  the  second,  instead 
of  using  the  words,  "  in  the  Minutes,"  he  has  "  in  the 
English  Minutes."8 

All  these  authorities  show  that  the  individual 
members  of  the  Conference  formally  agreed  to  recog- 
nize the  authority  of  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  so  that 
Mr.  Wesley  should  govern  them  in  America  as  he  did 
their  brethren  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland.  In 
other  words,  it  was  admitted  that  his  personal  govern- 
ment was  supreme  among  the  American  Methodists  as 
it  was  over  the  preachers  and  societies  on  the  other 
side  of  the  ocean. 

Further,  they  formally  recognized  the  Large  Min- 
utes, which  Wesley  had  collated  and  printed  three 
years  before,  as  the  formulated  doctrine  and  discipline 
which  should  govern  their  teaching  and  practice,  so 


»  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  pp.  55,  50. 

*  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  40. 


104  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

that  the  Large  Minutes  would  be  the  code  to  guide 
them,  while  Wesley's  will,  as  expressed  from  time 
to  time,  would  be  the  power  by  which  they  would  be 
directed.  In  other  words,  the  Conference  did  not  have 
inhering  in  it  any  legislative,  judicial,  or  executive 
power,  but  simply  carried  out  what  the  Large  Minutes 
set  forth  or  what  Wesley  declared. 

Again  the  sacramental  question  appears,  and  the 
preachers  consent  to  Wesley's  view  that  the  sac- 
raments should  be  received  from  the  Church  of 
England  clergy.  Asbury,  however,  tells  us  that  an 
exception  was  made  in  the  case  of  Robert  Straw- 
bridge.  This  was  doubtless  a  concession  to  the  abil- 
ity and  great  influence  of  this  remarkable  man,  and 
probably  to  the  demand  of  the  people,  which  demand 
arose  from  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  the  sacraments 
from  reputable  clergymen  at  convenient  times. 

Robert  Williams  had  done  great  good  by  printing 
and  circulating  selections  from  Wesley's  writings,1 
but  this  was  to  cease  unless  permission  was  granted. 
There  were  several  reasons  for  this :  First,  the  works 
belonged  to  Wesley ;  secondly,  there  was  an  idea  that 
a  kind  of  censorship  of  the  press  was  necessary  to 
prevent  error  and  to  avoid  bringing  discredit  upon 
Methodism ;  and,  thirdly,  it  was  thought,  as  Jesse 
Lee  says,  that  the  time  had  arrived  when  "it  now 
became  necessary  for  the  preachers  to  be  all  united  in 
the  same  cause  of  printing  and  selling  our  books,  so 
that  the  profits  arising  therefrom  might  be  divided 
i  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  49. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.         105 

among  the  preachers,  or  applied  to  some  charitable 
purpose." l 

Finally,  every  assistant  was  to  report  his  work  to 
the  general  assistant,  somewhat  as  the  preacher-in- 
charge  to-day  is  to  report  the  copditions  of  his  cir- 
cuit or  station  to  the  presiding  elder  of  the  district. 

These  conclusions  can  hardly  be  called,  in  any 
strict  sense,  law-making.  They  were  agreements  rather 
than  enactments.  In  view  of  certain  irregularities, 
these  particular  points  were  agreed  upon  in  the  com- 
mon effort  to  correct  irregularities  and  to  meet  exist- 
ing conditions.  Wesley  was  recognized  as  the  ruler, 
and  the  Large  English  Minutes  as  the  law;  and  the 
American  Conference  had  no  power  to  change  any- 
thing in  the  "  Large  Minutes." 

The  Minutes  themselves  seem  to  indicate  that  the 
above  agreements  were  extrajudicial,  for  after  them 
come,  "  Ques.  1.  How  are  the  preachers  stationed?" 
and  "  Ques.  2.  What  numbers  are  there  in  the  soci- 
ety ?"  as  though  these  alone  were  the  regular  items. 
The  Conference  made  no  laws  and  made  no  appoint- 
ments. Ran  kin,  Wesley's  general  assistant  and  rep- 
resentative, assigned  the  preachers  to  their  several 
localities,  where  they  were  to  labor. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Boardman  and  Pilmoor 
are  not  mentioned  in  these  Minutes.  They  received 
no  appointments,  because  they  were  to  return  to 
England.  Wesley,  in  his  proposed  epitaph  for  Board- 
man's  tomb,  indicates  that  his  return  was  occasioned 

•  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  49. 
8 


106  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

by  the  mutterings  of  war  in  the  Colonies;  for  even 
at  this  period  there  were  premonitions  of  the  Revo- 
lution. 

The  Minutea,  however,  reveal  the  fact  that  a 
native  ministry  was  growing  up.  In  the  list  of 
preachers  who  received  appointments  we  find  the 
name  of  "  William  Waiters,  of  the  Western  Shore  of 
Maryland,"  who  "began  to  travel  this  year,  and  he 
was  the  first  traveling  preacher  that  was  raised  up 
among  the  Methodists  in  America."1  Mr.  Waiters, 
for  some  reason,  did  not  go  to  New  Jersey;  and 
Philip  Gatch  tells  us  he  was  called  out  by  Mr. 
Rankin  to  fill  the  vacancy.2  Thus,  in  Waiters  and 
Gatch,  began  a  line  of  native  American  Methodist 
preachers. 

The  second  American  Conference  met  in  Phil- 
adelphia, on  the  25th  of  May,  1774;  and  from  that 
time  for  many  years,  May  was  the  favorite  month 
for  holding  the  Conferences,  and  especially  that 
which  was  esteemed  the  most  important. 

The  Minutes  show  that  the  preliminary  questions 
of  the  former  Conference  were  not  asked  at  this,  and 
further  show,  by  the  form  and'scope  of  the  questions, 
that  the  Conference  was  settling  down  to  a  regular 
order  of  business. 

They  were  as  follows: 

"  Ques.  1.  Who  are  admitted  this  year? 
"  Qucs.  2.  Who  are  admitted  on  trial  ? 
"  Ques.  3.  Who  are  assistants  this  year? 

•Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  45. 
•Gatch,  in  Leduum'a   Rise  of   Methodism  m  America,  1859,  pp. 
112  and  118. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.  107 

"  Qu.es.  4.  Are  there  any  objections  to  any  of  the  preachers  7 
"  Qua.  5.  How  are  the  preachers  stationed  this  year? 
"  Que$.  6.  What  numbers  are  there  in  society  ?" 

Jesse  Lee  explains  the  first  question  by  adding 
the  words  "  i.  e.,  into  full  connection."  l  The  answer 
to  the  fourth  question  was,  "  They  were  examined  one 
by  one" — a  custom  which  has  continued  to  this  day. 
After  the  list  of  appointments  comes  the  note :  "  All 
the  preachers  to  change  at  the  end  of  six  months." 

After  the  answers  to  the  regular  interrogatories 
comes  the  following  statement: 

"This  Conference  agreed  to  the  following  particulars: 

"  1.  Every  preacher  who  is  received  into  full  connection 
is  to  have  the  use  and  property  of  his  horse,  which  any  of  the 
circuits  may  furnish  him  with. 

"  2.  Every  preacher  to  be  allowed  six  pounds  Pennsylvania 
currency  per  quarter  and  his  traveling  charges  besides. 

"  3.  For  every  assistant  to  make  a  general  collection  at 
Easter  in  the  circuits  where  they  labor ;  to  be  applied  to  the 
•  sinking  of  debts  on  the  houses  and  relieving  the  preachers 
in  want. 

"  4.  Wherever  Thomas  Rankin  spends  his  time  he  is  to  be 
assisted  by  those  circuits."  * 

Now  the  assistants  are  named  in  order,  with 
Thomas  Ixankiu  at  the  head,  and  next  came  Francis 
Asbury. 

The  journal  of  the  latter  contains  a  brief  but  sug- 
gestive reference  to  this  Conference,  as  follows: 

"  Wednesday  25th.  Our  Conference  began.  The 
overbearing  spirit  of  a  certain  person  had  excited  my 
fears.  My  judgment  was  stubbornly  opposed  for 


i  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  60. 

•  Minutes  of  Methodist  Conferences,  Vol  I,  1773  to  1813,  pp.  7,  & 


108   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

awhile,  and  at  last  submitted  to.  But  it  is  my  duty  to 
bear  all  things  with  a  meek  and  patient  spirit.  Our 
Conference  was  attended  with  great  power,  and,  all 
things  considered,  with  great  harmony.  We  agreed 
to  send  Mr.  W.  [Wright]  to  England;  and  all  acqui- 
esced in  the  future  stations  of  the  preachers.  My  lot 
was  to  go  to  York  [New  York].  My  body  and  mind 
have  been  much  fatigued  during  the  time  of  this  Con- 
ference. And  if  I  were  not  deeply  conscious  of  the 
truth  and  goodness  of  the  cause  in  which  I  am  en- 
gaged, I  should  by  no  means  stay  here.  Lord !  what 
a  world  is  this!  Yea,  what  a  religious  world!  O, 
keep  my  heart  pure  and  my  garments  unspotted  from 
the  world !  Our  Conference  ended  on  Friday  with  a 
comfortable  intercession."1 

From  this  it  appears  that  Asbury  had  gone  to 
the  Conference  with  some  apprehensions.  It  also  ap- 
pears that  at  the  Conference  his  judgment  was 
opposed ;  but  it  is  just  as  evident  that  he  had  ex- 
pressed his  judgment  with  some  vigor,  and  that  at 
last  the  other  side  yielded.  He  does  not  give  the 
name  of  the  "  certain  person "  who  had  the 
"  overbearing  spirit ;"  but  it  is  very  plain  that  the 
English  Asbury  and  the  Scotch  Ilankin  did  not 
harmonize. 

Possibly  Asbury  felt  a  little  aggrieved  at  being 
superseded  after  he  had  been  assistant  such  a  short 
time,  and  yet  that  may  not  be  considered  clear.  In 
his  journal  of  June  3,  1773,  shortly  after  the  landing 
of  Rankin  he  makes  this  entry :  "  Thursday,  3d. 

1  Francis  Asbury,  Journal,  1821.  Vol.  I,  p,  81. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.  109 

To  my  great  comfort  arrived  Mr.  R.  [Rankin],  Mr. 
S.  [Shadford],  Mr.  Y.  [Yearbry],  and  Captain  W. 
[Webb].  Mr.  R.  [Rankin]  preached  a  good  sermon 
on  these  words:  'I  have  set  before  thee  an  open  door, 
and  no  man  can  shut  it.'  He  will  not  be  admired 
as  a  preacher,  but  as  a  disciplinarian  he  will  fill  his 
place."1 

He  afterward  appears  to  have  formed  a  higher  es- 
timate of  Mr.  Rankings  preaching  ability,  for  on  the 
13th  of  the  same  month  he  refers  to  him  as  having 
"  dispensed  the  word  of  truth  with  power,"  and  ob- 
serves that  "  it  reached  the  hearts  of  many,  and  they 
appeared  to  be  much  quickened." 

Doubtless  Rankin  was  appointed  to  superintend 
the  work  in  America  because  he  was  "a  discipli- 
narian." Possibly  he  had  the  Scotch  type  of  rigid- 
ness  in  the  discharge  of  duty,  which  Asbury  and 
others  could  not  help  feeling.  Bangs  says  that  Rankin, 
"  in  the  faithful  exercise  "  of  his  superior  power,  "  set 
himself  to  purifying  the  societies  from  corrupt  mem- 
bers and  restoring  things  to  order,"  and  "  it  was 
soon  found  that  the  discharge  of  this  duty,  however 
painful,  instead  of  abridging  the  influence  of  minis- 
terial labor,  greatly  extended  it,  and  exerted  a  most 
salutary  effect  upon  the  societies."2 

One  may  not  say  definitely  what  was  the  diffi- 
culty between  Asbury  and  Rankin.  Possibly  it  grew 
out  of  the  clashing  of  two  strong  wills,  backed  by 


i  Francis  ARbnry,  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  52. 

•N.  Bangs,  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  1857,  VoL  I,  pp. 
»,  81. 


110    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

strong  convictions.  Asbury  had  his  views  and  wishes, 
and  Rankin  had  his;  but  I  Ian  kin,  as  general  assistant, 
was  supreme,  and  therefore  Asbury  was  compelled 
to  submit. 

Dr.  Strickland  states  that,  in  1774,  Asbury,  "  in 
consequence  of  his  feeble  health,"  "  began  to  feel  some 
solicitude  about  his  appointment  for  the  ensuing  year," 
and  that  "he  expressed  a  desire  that  he  might 
be  saved  from  going  into  what  he  called  the  low 
country." l 

On  the  4th  of  November,  1774,  Asbury  met 
Rankin  in  Philadelphia,  when,  he  says,  "I  spoke 
my  mind  to  Mr.  R.  [Rankin],  but  we  did  not  agree  in 
judgment.  And  it  appeared  to  me  that  to  make  any 
attempt  to  go  to  Baltimore  would  be  all  in  vain."1 
Two  days  after  that,  Mr.  Asbury  makes  this  record  : 
"  Wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Wesley,  which  I  read  to  Mr. 
R.  [Rankin],  that  he  might  see  I  intended  no  guile  or 
secret  dealings.  It  is  somewhat  grievous  that  he 
should  prevent  my  going  to  Baltimore,  after  being 
acquainted  with  my  engagements  and  the  importunities 
of  my  friends  there." 3 

He  evidently  took  an  appeal  to  Mr.  Wesley ;  but 
it  was  a  manly  act  to  apprise  Mr.  Rankin  of  the  fact, 
and  to  let  him  peruse  the  contents  of  the  letter. 
But  about  it  all  there  is  a  little  touch  of  human 
nature.  Probably  Mr.  Rankin  also  reported  to 
Mr.  Wesley. 

Whatever  was  the  real  source  of  the  difference 


>  W.  P.  Strickland,  Life  of  Francis  Asbury,  New  York,  1858,  p.  104. 
»F.  Asbury,  Journal.  1821,  p.  102.       •  Ibid. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.          Ill 

between  these  strong  men,  Wesley,  after  hearing  the 
case,  decided  that  it  would  be  better  for  Asbury  to 
return  to  England. 

In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Rankin,  dated  March  1,  1775, 
Wesley  says :  "  As  soon  as  possible,  you  must  come 
to  a  full  and  clear  explanation,  both  with  Brother 
Asbury  (if  he  is  recovered)  and  with  Jemmy  Demp- 
ster. But  I  advise  Brother  Asbury  to  return  to 
England  the  first  opportunity." l  To  the  same  letter 
Mr.  Wesley  added  a  message  for  all  the  preachers  in 
America,  in  which  are  these  words :  "  The  conduct  of 
T.  Rankin  has  been  suitable  to  the  Methodist  plan. 
I  hope  all  of  you  tread  in  his  steps.  Let  your  eye 
be  single.  Be  in  peace  with  each  other,  and  the  God 
of  peace  will  be  with  you." 2 

On  April  21,  1775,  Wesley  writes  Rankin : 
"Brother  Asbury  has  sent  me  a  few  lines,  and  I 
thank  him  for  them.  But  I  do  not  advise  him  to  go 
to  Antigua.  Let  him  come  home  without  delay."8 
On  the  19th  of  May,  1775,  in  a  letter  to  the  same 
person,  he  says:  "I  doubt  not  but  Brother  Asbury 
and  you  will  part  friends.  I  shall  hope  to  see  him  at 
the  Conference.  He  is  quite  an  upright  man.  I  ap- 
prehend he  will  go  through  his  work  more  cheerfully 
when  he  is  within  a  little  distance  from  me."4  In 
another  letter  to  Mr.  Rankin,  written  July  28,  1775, 
Wesley  remarks :  "  I  rejoice,  too,  over  honest  Francis 
Asbury,  and  hope  he  will  no  more  enter  into  tempta- 
tion"*— an  allusion,  probably,  to  the  personal  dif- 

i  Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  VoL  VII,  pp.  7, 8.       •  Id,,  p.  8. 
•Jd.,  p.  9.       *lbid.       *Jd,  p.  1L 


112    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Terences  into  which  "  honest  Francis  Asbury "  had 
fallen. 

Differences  as  to  questions  of  policy  or  manage- 
ment of  affairs  may  occur  among  the  purest  men, 
and,  under  some  circumstances,  the  very  honesty  of  a 
strong  nature  may  bring  them  about.  Whatever  the 
dispute  was  about,  it  appears  to  have  been  at  least 
partially  adjusted;  for  Mr.  Wesley  wrote  to  Rankin 
on  the  13th  of  August,  1775:  "I  am  not  sorry  that 
Brother  Asbury  stays  with  you  another  year.  In 
that  time  it  will  be  seen  what  God  will  do  with  North 
America,  and  you  will  easily  judge  whether  our 
preachers  are  called  to  remain  any  longer  therein.  If 
they  are,  God  will  make  their  way  plain,  and  give 
them  favor  even  with  the  men  that  delight  in  war." l 

One  of  Mr.  Wesley's  letters,  just  quoted,  reveals 
the  fact  that  Asbury  really  had  some  thought  of  going 
to  Antigua.  On  the  23d  of  February,  1775,  which 
was  prior  to  the  date  of  Wesley's  letter,  Asbury 
makes  this  memorandum : 

"I  received  a  letter  from  Miss  G.  [Gilbert],  at 
Antigua,  in  which  she  informed  me  that  Mr.  G. 
[Francis  Gilbert]  was  going  away ;  and  as  there  are 
about  three  hundred  members  in  society,  she  entreats 
me  to  go  and  labor  amongst  them.  And  as  Mr.  Wes- 
ley has  given  his  consent,  I  feel  inclined  to  go,  and 
take  one  of  the  young  men  with  me.  But  there  is 
one  obstacle  in  my  way — the  administration  of  the 
ordinances.  It  is  possible  to  get  the  ordination  of  a 
presbytery ;  but  this  would  be  incompatible  with 

» Wesley'i  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  Vol.  VII,  p.  IL 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.         113 

Methodism,  which  would  be  an  effectual  bar  in  my 
way."  * 

Who  can  say  what  would  have  been  the  effect  on 
American  Methodism  had  Asbury  gone  to  the  island 
of  Antigua  or  returned  to  England  ?  The  history,  as 
we  narrate  it,  will  give  at  least  a  partial  answer. 

The  third  Annual  Conference  was  held  in  Phila- 
delphia, in  May,  1775,  beginning  on  Wednesday,  the 
17th,  and  closing  on  the  19th. 

Asbury  says :  "  From  Wednesday  till  Friday  we 
spent  in  Conference,  with  great  harmony  and  sweet- 
ness of  temper."2  The  Minutes  contain  the  names  of 
three  new  preachers  from  Great  Britain ;  namely,  James 
Dempster,  Martin  Rodda,  and  William  Glendenning. 
Mr.  Dempster  and  Mr.  Rodda  had  been  sent  out  by 
Mr.  Wesley  during  the  previous  year,  and  Mr.  Glen- 
denniug  appears  to  have  accompanied  them  as  a  vol- 
unteer. James  Dempster  was  a  Scotchman  of  good 
education,  having  been  educated  at  the  University  of 
Edinburgh ;  but  the  name  will  be  more  interesting  in 
these  later  days  from  the  fact  that  he  was  the  father 
of  the  Rev.  John  Dempster,  D.  D.,  the  organizer  of 
theological  seminaries  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

The  questions  asked  at  this  Conference  were  the 
same  as  those  asked  in  1774,  excepting  that  the 
printed  Minutes  do  not  give  the  inquiry,  "Are  there 
any  objections  to  any  one  of  the  preachers?"  though 
no  doubt  it  was  asked.  There  are  some  directions 
about  what  preachers  are  to  change  in  three  months 

>  Francis  Asbury,  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  107.       *  Id.,  p.  114. 


114    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

or  six  months;  but  the  most  important  items  are  the 
following : 

"  Thomas  Rankin  is  to  travel  till  the  month  of  December, 
»nd  then  take  a  quarter  in  New  York. 

"  The  preachers  in  Brunswick  and  Hanover,  to  change  as 
the  assistant  thinks  proper. 

"Thomas  Rankin's  deficiencies  to  be  paid  out  of  the 
yearly  collection. 

"The  preachers'  expenses  from  Conference  to  their  cir- 
cuit to  be  paid  out  of  the  yearly  collection. 

"  A  general  fast  for  the  prosperity  of  the  work,  and  for 
the  peace  of  America,  on  Tuesday,  the  13th  of  July." l 

It  will  be  recalled  that  in  1771  Mr.  Asbury  ex- 
pressed himself  as  opposed  to  ministers  remaining  in 
the  cities ;  but  since  that  time  he  had  been  stationed  in 
New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Baltimore,  and  he  de- 
sired to  be  reappointed  to  Baltimore  at  this  Confer- 
ence. Mr.  Asbury  had  also  been  anxious  for  "  a  cir- 
culation of  preachers  to  avoid  partiality  and  popular- 
ity." This  Mr.  Rankin  seems  to  have  secured,  for 
at  this  Conference  he  sent  Asbury  to  Norfolk. 

Now  the  Revolutionary  War  was  raging  with 
great  fury,  especially  in  the  North.  In  the  spring  of 
1776  Washington  moved  his  army  from  Boston  to 
New  York,  which  was  threatened  by  the  British,  and 
in  the  early  part  of  June,  Sir  Henry  Clinton  landed 
with  a  strong  force  on  Long  Island. 

This  probably  had  something  to  do  with  shifting 
the  Conference  seat  southwards;  for  the  fourth  An- 
nual Conference  opened  in  Baltimore,  on  the  21st  of 
May,  1776. 

>  Minutes  from  1778  to  1813,  pp.  9, 10. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.         115 

The  questions  asked  this  year  were  the  same  as 
those  of  the  previous  year.  There  were  no  resolu- 
tions or  agreements,  but  another  fast-day  was  ap- 
pointed. At  this  Conference  Freeborn  Garrettson 
was  "admitted  on  trial,"  and  Asbury  was  appointed 
to  Baltimore. 

The  fifth  Annual  Conference  was  held  at  Deer 
Creek  Meeting-house,  in  Harford  County,  Mary- 
land, on  the  20th  day  of  May,  1777.1  Over  this 
Conference  Rankin  presided,  as  he  had  over  all  held 
to  date.2  The  Minutes  show  the  same  questions  as 
before,  with  the  restoration  of  the  question,  "Are 
there  any  objections  to  any  of  the  preachers?"  and 
the  answer,  "  They  were  examined  one  by  one." 
Another  fast-day  was  ordered,  and  the  following 
questions  were  asked : 

"  Ques.  7.  As  the  present  distress  is  such,  are  the  preach- 
ers resolved  to  take  no  step  to  detach  themselves  from  the 
work  of  God  for  the  ensuing  year  ? 

"  Ant.  We  purpose,  by  the  grace  of  God,  not  to  take  any 
step  that  may  separate  us  from  the  brethren,  or  from  that 
blessed  work  in  which  we  are  engaged. 

"  Ques.  8.  Has  not  the  preaching  of  funeral  sermons  been 
carried  so  far  as  to  prostitute  that  venerable  custom,  and  in 
some  sort  to  render  it  contemptible  ? 

"  Ant.  Yes.  Therefore  let  all  the  preachers  inform  every 
society,  that  we  will  not  preach  any  but  for  those  who  we 
have  reasons  to  think  died  in  the  fear  and  favor  of  God."  * 

The  difficulties  brought  about  by  the  war  had 
greatly  interfered  with  religious  operations,  yet  there 


>  Minutes,  and  Lee's  History  of  Methodists,  pp.  60,  61. 
•N.  Bangs,  Life  of  Freeborn  Garret i. son,  1832,  p.  126. 
•Minute*  for  1777 ;  Lee's  History  of  Methodists,  p.  6L 


116   GOVERNING  CONFERENCB  IN  METHODISM. 

was  an  increase  of  twelve  preachers,  and  a  gain  of 
over  two  thousand  members,  and,  notwithstanding 
the  unsettled  state  of  the  country,  the  preachers  re- 
solved to  continue  their  services. 

New  York  was  occupied  by  the  British,  and  while 
the  name  of  the  appointment  appears  in  the  Minutes, 
it  was  left  without  a  preacher.  The  names  of 
Thomas  Rankin  and  Francis  Asbury  appear  in  the 
list  of  assistants,  but  not  among  those  taking  appoint- 
ments. The .  reason  of  this  will  soon  appear. 
Rankin  had  decided  to  return  to  England,  and 
Asbury  found  it  difficult  to  travel  because  of  the  an- 
tagonism to  the  English.  Most  of  the  leading  preach- 
ers had  come  from  Great  Britain,  and  some  of  them, 
Rodda,1  for  example,  had  been  imprudent  in  express- 
ing their  views  in  favor  of  the  mother  country, 
which  was  contrary  to  the  advice  of  John  and 
Charles  Wesley.2 

This  created  a  prejudice  against  the  other  English- 
born  preachers,  even  when  they  took  no  sides. 
Asbury  met  with  obstacles  as  well  as  others.  On 
the  20th  of  June,  1776,  he  records  that  he  "  was 
fined  five  pounds  for  preaching  the  gospel,"  near 
Baltimore.3  Since  the  Conference  of  1776  the  Colo- 
nies had  declared  their  independence,  and,  as  the  anti- 
British  feeling  became  more  intense,  a  number  of 

i  Lee's  Ills!  ory  of  Methodists,  p.  62 ;  N.  Bangs,  Life  of  Freeborn 
Garrettson,  pp.  71,  72. 

*  Wesley's  letter  to  Rankin,  Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  Vol.  VII, 
p.  8;  Charles  Wesley  to  Rankin,  L.  Tyerman's  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill, 
pp.  194, 195. 

»  Asbury 's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  141. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.         117 

the  English  preachers  seriously  considered  the  wis- 
dom of  returning  to  England.  On  Tuesday,  the  21st 
of  January,  1777,  Asbury  states  that  he  received  a 
message  informing  him  that  Mr.  R — a  [Rodda]  and 
Mr.  G.  S.  [George  Shadford]  were  waiting  to  see  him. 
Then  he  says:  "After  preacbing,  I  set  out,  and  met 
my  brethren  the  same  night,  and  found  them  inclined 
to  leave  America  and  embark  for  England.  But  I 
had  before  resolved  not  to  depart  from  the  work  on 
any  consideration.  After  some  consultation,  it  was 
thought  best  that  Mr.  R, — a  [Rodda]  should  go  to 
Mr.  R — n  [Rankin],  and  request  his  attendance 
here."1  In  March  the  same  subject  came  up.  On 
the  26th,  Asbury  says :  "  I  received  a  letter  from 
Brother  S.  [Shadford]  intimating  that,  according  to 
rule,  the  time  was  drawing  near  for  us  to  return."  2 
On  Monday,  the  30th,  he  says :  "  I  was  under  some 
exercise  of  mind  in  respect  to  the  times;  my  brethren 
are  inclined  to  leave  the  continent,  and  I  do  not 
know  but  something  may  be  propounded  to  me  which 
would  touch  my  conscience  ;  but  my  determination  is 
to  trust  in  God,  and  be  satisfied  if  the  souls  of  my 
fellow-men  are  saved."  *  So  he  was  a  little  uncertain 
as  to  the  right  course  for  him  to  pursue,  but  his 
entry  of  April  2d  shows  a  strengthening  determina- 
tion to  stay.  On  that  date  he  writes :  "  Having  re- 
ceived information  that  some  of  my  brethren  had  de- 
termined on  their  departure,  I  wrote  to  Brother  S. 
[Shadford],  that  as  long  as  I  could  stay  and  preach 

*  Asbury  'a  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  178.       » Id.,  p.  182.       •  Ibid. 


118   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

without  injuring  my  conscience,  it  appeared  as  my 
duty  to  abide  with  the  flock ;  but  I  must  confess  Satan 
has  harassed  me  with  violent  and  various  tempta- 
tions." l  So  there  was  at  times  a  conflict  between 
the  purpose  to  remain  and  the  desire  to  depart. 

Before  the  Conference  of  1777  convened,  Asbury 
appears  to  have  made  up  his  mind  to  remain  in 
America.  In  his  journal  he  intimates  as  much  in 
his  account  of  the  Conference,  and  at  the  same  time 
gives  some  items  of  information  which  give  us  a 
fuller  conception  as  to  the  doings  of  the  Conference 
than  we  can  gather  from  the  printed  Minutes. 

He  says  that  on  Monday,  May  12th,  he  set  out  for 
the  "Yearly  Conference,  and  having  preached  at 
Mr.  P.'s  by  the  way,  came  safe  to  Mr.  G.'s,  and  was 
glad  to  see  the  preachers  there." 

Whether  this  gathering  was  accidental  or  by  agree- 
ment we  can  not  say.  It  looks  a  little  like  a  caucus. 
Certainly,  whether  premeditated  or  not,  it  was  of  the 
nature  of  a  preparatory  meeting.  Continuing,  he  re- 
marks :  "  We  had  some  weighty  conversation  on  dif- 
ferent points,  and,  among  other  things,  it  was  asked 
whether  we  could  give  our  consent  that  Mr.  R.  [Ran- 
kin]  should  baptize,  as  there  appeared  to  be  a  present 
necessity.  But  it  was  objected  that  this  would  be  a 
breach  of  our  discipline,  and  it  was  not  probable  that 
things  would  continue  long  in  such  a  disordered  state. 
The  next  day,  with  great  harmony  and  joint  consent, 
we  drew  a  rough  draught  for  stationing  the  preachers 
the  ensuing  year.  And  on  Friday  we  conversed  on 

» Asbury 's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  pp.  182, 183. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.          119 

the  propriety  of  signing  certificates  avouching  good 
conduct  for  such  of  the  preachers  as  chose  to  go  to 
Europe.  But  I  could  not  see  the  propriety  of  it  at 
this  time.  We  also  conversed  on  such  rules  as  might 
be  proper  for  the  regulation  of  the  preachers  who 
abide  on  the  continent.  And  it  was  judged  necessary 
that  a  committee  should  be  appointed  to  superintend 
the  whole.  And  on  Monday  [May  19th]  we  rode  to- 
gether to  attend  the  Conference  at  Deer  Creek."  1 

Most  assuredly  this  was  a  remarkable  meeting.  It 
looks  too  systematic  to  have  been  entirely  accidental, 
and  one  would  be  pardoned  for  presuming  that  it  had 
been  prearranged  that  these  preachers  should  meet  at 
this  point  more  than  a  week  before  Conference,  and 
remain  in  session  about  a  week.  Then  the  matters 
discussed  were  of  a  striking  character,  as  will  be  seen 
after  the  most  hasty  reading. 

The  pressure  for  the  sacraments  and  the  real  need 
of  ministers  to  administer  them  to  the  Methodists, 
must  have  been  very  manifest  when  these  preachers 
discussed  the  question  as  to  whether  "  Mr.  R.  should 
baptize."  It  is  quite  certain  that  Mr.  Rankin  was  not 
present  at  this  time,  and  it  would  seem  that  it  was  be- 
cause of  his  probable  departure  from  the  country  that 
most  of  these  points  were  considered.  In  a  short  time 
he,  Wesley's  representative,  would  return  to  Great 
Britain.  Without  Wesley's  general  assistant,  they 
would  be  like  a  body  without  a  head.  The  war  would 
prevent  communication  with  Wesley,  or  the  reception 
of  directions  from  him.  They  would  be  isolated  and 

i  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  188. 


120   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

left  to  themselves,  and  so  they  "conversed  on  such 
rules  as  might  be  proper  for  the  regulation  of  the 
preachers  who  abide  on  the  continent"  after  Rankin 
and  others  whom  Wesley  had  sent  should  leave  for 
British  shores.  And  so  "it  was  judged  necessary  that 
a  committee  should  be  appointed  to  superintend  the 
whole." 

Did  Asbury  suggest  that  arrangement?  Possibly 
he  did.  It  is  simply  the  plan  proposed  by  Wesley  in 
1769  for  the  Conference  to  follow  when  death  took 
him  from  their  head/ and  at  that  time  Asbury  was 
one  of  Wesley's  preachers  in  England,  and  doubtless 
knew  about  the  idea  of  committee  control.  Prob- 
ably the  American  preachers  generally  were  familiar 
with  it.  Whether  they  knew  of  Wesley's  plan  or  not, 
it  is  plain  that  at  that  time  they  had  no  thought  of 
permitting  one  person  to  have  supreme  control  in  the 
absence  of  Wesley's  representative.  However,  there 
is  no  evidence  in  the  Minutes  that  the  Conference 
adopted  this  scheme  of  government,  though  Dr. 
Stevens,  without  giving  his  authority,  says:  "As 
the  English  preachers  had  retired  before  the  storm  of 
the  Revolution,  and  Asbury  was  in  confinement,  the 
session  of  that  body  in  1777  appointed  a  committee 
of  five  to  take  the  general  superintendency  of  the 
denomination.  It  consisted  of  Gatch,  Dromgoole, 
Glendenning,  Ruff,  and  Watters.  Gatch  served  in 
this  capacity  till  Asbury  could  again  venture  into  the 
open  field."1  Evidently  there  are  some  errors  in  this 

»  A.  Stevans,  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,   1863,  Vol 
I,  p.  381 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.          121 

statement.  The  English  preachers  were  at  the  Con- 
ference of  1777.  Asbury  was  not  "  in  confinement," 
but  was  present  also,  and  did  not  retire  until  the 
next  year,  as  we  shall  see.  Further,  if  such  a  com- 
mittee had  been  appointed,  Asbury  would  probably 
have  been  a  member;  or  if  not,  Watters,  as  the  old- 
est preacher,  would  have  been  named  first.  What  is 
more,  Gatch  that  very  year  was  compelled  to  retire 
from  the  effective  work  on  account  of  injuries  and 
illness,  and,  as  Stevens  himself  shows,  his  name  does 
not  again  appear  in  the  Minutes  as  taking  an  appoint- 
ment until  years  after,  when  he  had  removed  to  Ohio. l 
Lee,  who  mentions  many  minor  details  of  the  Con- 
ferences, makes  no  reference  to  any  such  arrangement. 
Dr.  Stevens  possibly  drew  his  information  from 
Lednum,  who  says:  "As  it  was  probable  that  all  the 
English  preachers  would  return  home  on  account  of 
the  war,  it  was  judged  most  prudent  to  appoint  a  com- 
mittee of  five  of  the  most  judicious  of  the  preachers 
that  would  remain  to  superintend  the  work.  Messrs. 
Wm.  Watters,  Philip  Gatch,  Daniel  Ruff,  Edward 
Dromgoole,  and  William  Glendenning  were  the 
committee."1 

Lednum  quotes  no  authority ;  but  his  putting  of 
the  case  is  more  probable  than  that  of  Stevens;  and 
yet  neither  Asbury  nor  Lee  refer  to  such  an  appoint- 
ment by  the  Conference,  and  there  is  no  mention  of  it 
in  the  Minutes  of  1777. 


•  A.  Stevens,  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Vol.  I,  pp 
379-381. 

1  Rev.  John  Lednnm,  History  of  Rise  of  Methodism  In  America, 
Plillmlplphla,  185!),  p.  190. 

tf 


122   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Asbury  throws  a  little  more  light  upon  the  Con- 
ference in  the  final  part  of  his  memorandum.  He 
ny»t 

"So  greatly  has  the  Lord  increased  the  number  of 
traveling  preachers  within  these  few  years  that  we 
have  now  twenty-seven  who  attend  the  circuits,  and 
twenty  of  them  were  present  at  this  Conference.  Both 
our  public  and  private  business  was  conducted  with 
great  harmony,  peace,  and  love.  Our  brethren  who 
intend  to  return  to  Europe  have  agreed  to  stay  till 
the  way  is  quite  open.  I  preached  on  the  charge 
which  our  Lord  gave  his  apostles, '  Behold,  I  send 
you  forth  as  sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves;  be  ye 
therefore  wise  as  serpents  and  harmless  as  doves.' 
Our  Conference  ended  with  a  love-feast  and  watch- 
night.  But  when  the  time  of  parting  came,  many 
wept  as  if  they  had  lost  their  first-born  sons.  They 
appeared  to  be  in  the  deepest  distress,  thinking,  as  I 
suppose,  they  should  not  see  the  faces  of  the  English 
preachers  any  more.  This  was  such  a  parting  as  I 
never  saw  before.  Our  Conference  has  been  a  great 
time,  a  season  of  uncommon  affection,  and  we  must 
acknowledge  that  God  has  directed,  owned,  and 
blessed  us  in  the  work.  A  certificate,  as  mentioned 
above,  had  been  acceded  to,  and  signed  in  the  Con- 
ference." * 

Reliable  evidence  shows  that  neither  the  Minutes 
nor  Mr.  Asbury  record  all  that  occurred  at  the  Con- 
ference of  1777.  There  is  positive  proof  that  the 
question  of  permitting  the  Methodist  preachers  to 

>  As  bury '»  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  180. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.          123 

administer  the  sacraments  to  the  Methodist  people, 
instead  of  subsiding,  had  grown  in  force,  and  was 
again  brought  up  formally  at  this  Conference.  Free- 
born  Garrettson,  who  was  a  member  of  this  Confer- 
ence, states  in  his  manuscript  notes  that  at  this  session 
it  was  asked :  "  Shall  the  preachers  in  A  merica  ad- 
minister the  ordinances?"  and  that  the  answer  given 
was:  "We  will  suspend  them  until  the  next  Con- 
ference." '  In  other  words,  as  we  interpret  the 
answer,  consideration  of  the  question  was  postponed 
until  the  Annual  Conference  of  the  following  year. 
It  is  probable  that  Mr.  Garrettson,  drawing  on 
his  memory,  gave  the  substance  of  the  question  and 
answer,  rather  than  the  exact  wording,  but  the  manu- 
script journal 2  of  the  Rev.  Philip  Gatch,  who  was 
also  present  at  the  Conference,  gives  us  probably  the 
exact  language.  In  his  journal  Mr.  Gatch  records 
that  the  following  questions  were  asked  and  the  fol- 
lowing answers  given : 

"  Quea.  What  shall  be  done  with  respect  to  the  ordinances  ? 

11  Ans.  Let  the  preachers  and  people  pursue  the  old  plan 
as  from  the  beginning. 

"  Ques.  What  alteration  may  we  make  in  our  original  plan  ? 

"  Ans.  Our  next  Conference  will,  if  God  permits,  show 
us  more  clearly."* 

This,  no  doubt,  is  substantially  accurate,  and,  as 
will  be  seen,  the  sacramental  question  did  come  up  at 
the  next  Conference. 

i  Nathan  Bangs,  Life  of  the  Rev.  Freeborn  Garrettson,  New  York, 
1832,  p.  126;  N.  Bangs,  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  1857, 
Vol.  I,  p.  129. 

*  The  Journal  was  in  the  possession  of  the  Rev.  C.  Elliott,  D.  D. 

•Leroy  M.  Lee,  D.  D.,  Life  and  Times  of  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  Nashville, 
I860,  p.  78. 


124    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Before  that  Conference  convened,  nearly  all  the 
remaining  English  preachers  embarked  for  England. 
The  British  troops  had  landed  on  the  25th  of  Au- 
gust, 1777,  at  the  head  of  Elk  River,  Maryland,  and 
immediately  marched  northward,  and  entered  Phila- 
delphia in  September.  This  appeared  to  be  a  favor- 
able time  for  the  departure  of  those  who  preferred 
their  mother  country ;  so  about  the  middle  of  the 
latter  month  Mr.  Raukin  and  Mr.  Rodda  sailed  for 
Europe.1 

Shadford  and  Asbury  still  tarried,  but  in  a  state 
of  doubt.  On  the  21st  of  July,  1777,  Mr.  Asbury 
says:  "Heard  Mr.  Rankin  preach  his  last  sermon. 
My  mind  was  a  little  dejected,  and  I  now  felt  some 
desire  to  return  to  England,  but  was  willing  to 
commit  the  matter  to  the  Lord."2  At  last  the  day 
of  final  decision  came.  In  the  beginning  of  March, 
1778,  Shadford  kept  a  day  of  private  fasting  and 
prayer  with  Mr.  Asbury,  in  order  to  know  the 
will  of  God;"3  and  Ezekiel  Cooper  tells  us  that, 
"  after  the  season  of  fasting  and  prayer,  Shadford 
concluded,  and  observed  that  he  had  an  answer  to 
leave  the  country  and  return  to  England  ;  but  Asbury, 
who  received  an  answer  to  stay,  replied,  '  If  you  are 
called  to  go,  I  am  called  to  stay;  so  we  must  part.'4 
From  that  moment,"  says  Cooper,  "  he  made 
America  his  country  and  his  home." 

» Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  62. 

•  Asbury's  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  190. 

•Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  64. 

<  Ezekiel  Cooper,  Funeral  Discourse  mi  the  Death  of  the  Rev.  Fran- 
cis Asbury,  Superintendent  or  Seuior  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  ILpitt- 
copal  Church,  Philadelphia,  1819,  p.  82. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  TO  1777.         125 

Shadford  left  the  country,  and  Asbury,  though  he 
remained,  was  compelled  to  go  into  retirement.  In 
1777,  his  work  being  in  Baltimore  and  vicinity,  it 
was  demanded  that  he  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  to 
the  State  of  Maryland  ;  but  this,  he  held,  he  could  not 
conscientiously  do,  and  "the  result  was  that  he  was 
obliged  to  leave  the  State  and  go  to  Delaware,  where 
the  State  oath  was  not  required  of  clergymen." l  In 
the  quaint  language  of  Jesse  Lee,  "On  the  5th  day  of 
March,  Mr.  Asbury  began  to  lye  by  at  Thomas 
White's,  in  the  Delaware  State,  where  he  shut 
himself  up."2 

Asbury  thus  explains  his  retirement  to  Delaware : 

"  The  reason  of  this  retirement  was  as  follows : 
From  March  10,  1778,  on  conscientious  principles  I 
was  a  non-juror,  and  could  not  preach  in  the  State  of 
Maryland,  and  therefore  withdrew  to  the  Delaware 
State,  where  the  clergy  were  not  required  to  take  the 
State  oath,  though  with  a  clear  conscience  I  could 
have  taken  the  oath  of  the  Delaware  State  had  it 
been  required,  and  would  have  done  it  had  I  not 
been  prevented  by  a  tender  fear  of  hurting  the  scru- 
pulous consciences  of  others.  St.  Paul  saith  :  '  When 
ye  sin  so  against  the  brethren,  and  wound  their  weak 
conscience,  ye  sin  against  Christ.'  (1  Cor.  viii,  12.)" s 

During  most  of  this  period  of  seclusion,  Asbury 
was  entertained  at  the  hospitable  mansion  of  Judge 
White,  in  Kent  County,  Delaware ;  but  part  of  the  , 


i  Rev.  W.  P.  Strickland,  Life  of  Francis  Asbury,  1858,  p.  112. 
•Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  tfl 
»  Asbury 's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  208. 


126    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

time  he  was  compelled  to  seek  shelter  in  more  se- 
cluded places.  The  excited  condition  of  the  country, 
and  the  suspicion  attaching  to  him  because  of  his 
English  birth,  gave  him  great  mental  distress;  as  he 
says,  on  the  13th  of  March:  "I  was  under  some 
heaviness  of  mind.  But  it  was  no  wonder, — three 
thousand  miles  from  home,  my  friends  have  left  me ;  I 
am  considered  by  some  as  an  enemy  of  the  country ; 
every  day  liable  to  be  seized  by  violence,  and  abused. 
However,  all  this  is  but  a  trifle  to  suffer  for  Christ 
and  the  salvation  of  souls."1 

All  these  facts  have  a  very  important  bearing 
upon  the  ecclesiastical  development  of  American 
Methodism.  The  war,  causing  the  departure  of 
Rankin  and  other  leading  English  preachers  and  tin- 
retirement  of  Asbury,  made  a  marked  change  in  the 
conditions.  Now  there  was  not  one  preacher  in  the 
Conference  who  had  been  sent  over  by  Mr.  Wesley. 
His  direct  control  was  interrupted  by  the  war,  and  the 
American  preachers  were  left  to  themselves.  The  first 
period  of  the  American  Conferences  had  ended,  and 
a  new  epoch  had  been  reached. 

i  Asbury 't.  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  205. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  AMERICAN  CONFERENCES  FROM  1778  TO  1781. 


Sixth  Annual  Conference,  and  the  first  under 
JL  the  new  conditions,  was  held  in  Leesburg,  Vir- 
ginia, May  19,  1778.  As  there  was  no  general  assist- 
ant of  Mr.  Wesley  present,  "  Mr.  William  Waiters, 
being  the  oldest  American  preacher,  was  called  to  the 
chair."1  Heretofore,  Mr.  Rankin  had  presided  and 
made  the  appointments  as  the  representative  of  Mr. 
Wesley,  and  this  was  the  first  time  for  an  American 
Conference  to  elect  its  presiding  officer.  In  the 
printed  Minutes,  Mr.  Watters  is  placed  at  the  head  of 
the  assistants,  no  doubt  on  the  ground  of  seniority 
and  because  of  his  election  to  the  presidency  of  the 
Conference,  so  that  his  name  appears  in  the  same  rela- 
tive position  as  did  that  of  Rankin  in  the  Minutes  of 
1774.  Mr.  Asbury  was  not  present  at  the  Confer- 
ence, and  his  name  does  not  appear  in  the  Minutes, 
but  for  the  first  time  there  appears  the  name  of  James 
O'Kelly,  who  was  to  play  an  important  part  in  the 
future  history  of  Methodism.  New  York,  Philadel- 
phia, Chester,  Frederick,  and  Norfolk  were,  on  ac- 
count of  the  war,  dropped  out  of  the  list  of  appoint- 
ments for  the  time  being.  The  printed  Minutes  show 
that  the  Second  Question  was  changed  from  "  What 


'  N.  Bangs,  Life  of  Freeborn  Garrettson,  8d  Ed.,  1832,  p.  126. 

137 


128    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

preachers  are  admitted  on  trial?"  to  "What  preachers 
remain  on  trial  ?"  Two  or  three  new  questions  were 
introduced,  namely: 

"  Ques.  6.  Who  shall  act  as  general  stewards? 

"  Am.  William  Moore,  Henry  Fry. 

"  Ques.  7.  What  was  done  with  the  balance  of  the  col- 
lection ? 

"  Am.  Lodged  with  Henry  Fry. 

"  Ques.  8.  What  shall  the  preachers  be  allowed  for  quar- 
terage ? 

"Ans.  Eight  pounds  Virginia  currency."1 

Lee  explains  the  change  in  allowance  from  £6 
Pennsylvania  currency  to  the  above  amount.  He 
says:  "As  paper  money  was  much  depreciated,  the 
preachers  concluded  to  allow  each  traveling  preacher 
£8  Virginia  money  a  quarter,  or  £32  per  year."3  An- 
other fast-day  was  appointed. 

This,  in  brief,  is  all  the  printed  Minutes  contain; 
but  we  have  already  ascertained  that  the  printed 
Minutes  do  not  always  show  everything  that  actually 
transpired,  and  so  in  this  instance  we  conclude  that 
possibly  this  was  only  a  very  brief  summary.  Further, 
when  we  remember  how  anxious  the  American  Meth- 
odists had  been  to  have  the  sacraments  among  them- 
selves, but  that  they  had  been  restrained  by  the  En- 
glish Minutes  and  the  English  preachers,  we  must 
think  it  surprising  if,  in  this  first  Conference,  when 
they  were  practically  left  to  themselves,  they  said 
nothing  at  all  upon  the  subject. 

Other  data  demonstrate  that  the  matter  was  before 


i  Printed  Minutes  for  1778. 

*  Jesse  Lee,  Hist  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  63. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     129 

the  Conference.  It  had  been  referred  by  the  Confer- 
ence of  1777  to  the  Conference  of  1778.  The  Rev. 
Freeborn  Garrettson  states  that  the  question,  "Shall 
we  administer  the  ordinances?"  was  again  proposed. 
"  I  was  present,"  says  Mr.  Garrettson,  "  and  the  an- 
swer was,  *  Lay  it  over  until  the  next  Conference,' 
which  was  appointed  to  be  held  in  Fluvanna  County, 
Virginia,  May  18,  1779,  at  what  was  called  the 
Broken-back  Church."1  Philip  Gatch  says,  in  his 
journal,  that  the  same  question  was  again  asked,  and 
that  it  was  answered :  "  We  unanimously  agree  to 
refer  it  to  the  next  Conference."2 

As  already  observed,  Asbury's  name  does  not  ap- 
pear in  the  printed  Minutes  of  1778.  As  he  did  not 
receive  an  appointment  to  a  charge  and  was  not  pres- 
ent at  the  session,  he  was  considered  to  have  ceased 
to  be  a  member  of  the  Conference.  As  opportunity 
afforded  he  preached  from  time  to  time,  and  as  the 
danger  gradually  diminished  he  extended  his  tours. 

Lednum  remarks  that,  "about  this  time,  Mr. 
Asbury  heard  some  agreeable  news,  which  probably 
was  'that  a  letter  which  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Rankin  in 
1777,  in  which  he  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the 
Americans  would  become  a  free  and  independent 
Nation,  and  that  he  was  too  much  knit  in  affection  to 
many  of  them  to  leave  them,  and  that  Methodist 
preachers  had  a  great  work  to  do  under  God  in  this 
country,'  had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  American 


»N.  Bangs,  Life  of  Rev.  Freeborn  •Garrettson,  8d  Ed.,  1832,  p.  126; 
N.  Bangs,  Hist,  of  M.  E.  Church,  Vol.  I,  p.  129. 

«  Leroy  M.  Lee,  D.  D.,  Life  of  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  1860,  p.  78. 


130   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

officers,  and  had  produced  a  great  change  in  their 
opinions  and  feelings  towards  him.  His  excellency, 
Caesar  Rodney,  governor  of  Delaware,  aware  of  this, 
was  quite  favorable  to  him  and  the  Methodists."1 

The  seclusion,  however,  had  its  good  side ;  for,  as 
his  journals  show,  Asbury  devoted  his  time  to  study 
and  extensive  reading  that  doubtless  better  fitted  him 
for  the  exalted  sphere  he  was  to  occupy.  He  record? 
the  fact  that  he  read  a  great  variety  of  standard 
works.  In  one  entry  he  says :  "  I  applied  myself  to 
the  Greek  and  Latin  Testament."2  Perhaps  it  was 
this  opportunity  for  study  that  led  him  to  say :  "Upon 
mature  reflection  I  do  not  repent  my  late  voluntary 
retirement  in  the  State  of  Delaware."3  And  his  new 
experience  may  have  led  him  to  see  that  the  preacher 
of  the  Word  needs  time  for  general  study  and  special 
preparation;  for,  about  ten  days  after  making  the 
entry  just  quoted,  he  refers  to  the  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  the  Methodist  preacher  of  that  day  who  de- 
sired to  study,  and  suggests  that  they  ought  to  have 
spare  time  "for  the  purpose  of  improving  them- 
selves." * 

Though  in  seclusion,  he  no  doubt  was  kept  well 
informed  as  to  what  was  occurring  in  American  Meth- 
odism. On  the  30th  of  June,  1778,  he  says :  "  Brother 
F.  G.  [Freeborn  Garrettson]  came  to  see  me."5  This 
was  a  little  more  than  a  month  after  the  Conference 
of  1778,  and  no  doubt  Mr.  Garrettson  fully  acquainted 

i  Rev.  John  Lednnm,  Rise  of  Methodism  in  America,  Philadelphia, 
1859,  p.  226. 

<  Asbu ry  's  Journal,  1821.  Vol.  I,  p.  200.          '  Id.,  p.  929.        « Id.,  p.  230. 
•#.,  p.  21$. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     131 

him  with  all  that  had  taken  place  at  that  session,  and 
especially  with  the  fact  that  at  the  next  Conference 
the  sacramental  question  was  to  be  considered.  His 
journal  presents  other  indications  that  various  items 
of  information  reached  him  from  time  to  time,  and  in 
his  moments  of  meditation  he  possibly  matured  plans 
for  the  future.  That  he  thought  there  would  be  a 
Brighter  future  for  him  seems  more  than  probable. 
Thus,  on  the  30th  day  of  March,  1779,  he  writes:  "I 
then  rode  on  to  Brother  Shaw's,  where  I  heard  agree- 
able news.  Peradventure  there  is  something  in  the 
womb  of  providence  for  which  the  Lord  hath  been 
preparing  me  by  bringing  me  through  fire  and 
water." l 

What  was  this  pleasing  news?  What  was  this 
brighter  anticipation  ?  He  does  not  say,  but  leaves  us 
to  whatever  our  imaginations  may  picture. 

We  are  now  on  the  eve  of  important  events.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  the  Conference  of  1778 
ordered  that  the  next  Annual  Conference  should 
meet  at  Fluvanna,  Virginia,  on  the  18th  of  May, 
yet  on  the  28th  of  April,  1779,  twenty  days  before 
the  time,  we  find  a  Conference  meeting  at  Judge 
White's,  the  recent  home  of  Asbury,  in  Kent  County, 
Delaware.1 

At  once  the  reader  will  ask,  Who  called  this  Con- 
ference, and  by  what  authority  was  the  call  issued? 
Legally,  as  matters  then  stood,  no  one  but  the  Con- 
ference could  fix  the  place  for  holding  the  Confer- 

1  Asbury '8  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  236. 

•Printed  Minutes,  1773-1813,  p.  18 ;  Asbury's  Journal,  VoL  I,  p.  237. 


132    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

ence.  That  being  the  case,  no  one  man  and  no  number 
of  men  had  a  legal  right  to  go  contrary  to  the  order 
of  the  Conference.  There  was  only  a  minority  of  the 
preachers  at  the  Kent  County  meeting,  so  that  it  is  plain 
this  gathering  was  not  at  the  request  of  the  majority. 

The  fact  that  this  Conference  was  held  at  Asbury's 
temporary  home  would  lead  to  the  inference  that  As- 
bury  probably  called  or  suggested  it.  Some  other* 
one  may  have  originated  the  idea,  but  of  this  there 
is  no  proof.  It  is,  however,  certain  that  it  was  held 
at  Judge  White's  for  the  convenience  of  Mr.  Asbury. 
Mr.  Asbury  was  not  at  the  Conference  of  1778,  as  it 
was  not  convenient  for  him  to  go  out  of  the  State  of 
Delaware  to  attend  the  Conference  to  be  held  in  Vir- 
ginia that  year. 

There  is  no  legal  ground  on  which  Mr.  Asbury 
could  at  that  time  call  a  legal  Conference.  Even  if 
Mr.  Wesley's  general  assistant  could  change  the 
time  and  place  fixed  for  a  Conference,  neither  Mr. 
Asbury  nor  any  other  man  held  this  position  at  that 
time,  and,  therefore,  no  one  had  a  right  to  make  the 
change.  Mr.  Asbury  was  not  even  recognized  as  a 
member  by  the  Conference  of  1778;  but  whether  he 
was  or  was  not  really  a  member,  or  whether  he  or 
some  other  preacher  called  this  meeting  of  the  preach- 
ers, it  can  not  fairly  be  called  the  legal  Annual  Con- 
ference of  the  year;  and  if  it  is  to  be  justified,  it  must 
be  on  other  than  strictly  legal  grounds. 

Asbury  gives  the  following  account  of  the  Confer- 
ence in  Delaware  :  "Our  Conference  for  the  Northern 
stations  began  at  Thomas  White's.  All  our  preachers 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     133 

on  these  stations  were  present,  and  united.  We  had 
much  prayer,  love,  and  harmony;  and  we  all  agreed 
to  walk  by  the  same  rule  and  to  mind  the  same  thiug. 
As  we  had  great  reason  to  fear  that  our  brethren  to 
the  southward  were  in  danger  of  separating  from  us,  we 
wrote  them  a  soft,  healing  epistle.  On  these  Northern 
stations  we  have  now  about  seventeen  traveling  preach- 
ers. We  appointed  our  next  Conference  to  be  held 
in  Baltimore  town,  the  last  Tuesday  in  April  next."1 

On  Monday,  May  3,  1779,  he  writes:  "Yesterday 
we  had  some  melting  under  the  Word,  at  the  house 
of  E.  White ;  and  to-day  I  wrote  to  John  Dickins,  to 
Philip  Gatch,  Edward  Dromgoole,2  and  William  Glen- 
denning,  urging  them,  if  possible,  to  prevent  a  sepa- 
ration among  the  preachers  in  the  South — that  is, 
Virginia  and  North  Carolina — and  I  entertain  great 
hopes  that  the  breach  will  be  healed;  if  not,  the 
consequences  may  be  bad."3 

This,  at  first  glance,  must  seem  a  surprising  state- 
ment. He  fears  the  brethren  from  the  South  are  in 
danger  of  separating,  and  he  writes  certain  parties  to 
endeavor  to  prevent  a  separation ;  and  yet  these 
Northern  preachers,  who  rally  around  Mr.  Asbury, 
have  practically  withdrawn  from  the  Southern  preach- 
ers, and  stand  in  the  attitude  of  separatists.  If  they 
had  all  met  together,  and  the  Southerners  had  se- 
ceded, then  the  case  would  have  been  different;  or 
even  if  all  had  met  at  the  place  legally  designated, 


'  Aabury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  pp.  237,  238. 

•  In  Minutes,  Drumgole;  spelled  by  others  Dromgoole. 

•Asbury 'H  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  238. 


134    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

and  the  Southerners,  having  a  majority,  had  carried 
measures  to  which  the  Northern  preachers  were  con- 
scientiously opposed,  and  then  the  Northern  minority 
withdrew  on  principle,  the  case  would  have  been 
different.  As  it  was,  the  so-called  Northern  preach- 
ers did  not  wait  for  the  regular  Conference,  but  met 
in  advance,  and  then  all  who  had  responded  to  the 
invitation  to  attend  the  meeting  at  Judge  White's 
absented  themselves  from  the  regular  session.  What 
is  equally  significant  is,  that  they  acted  as  though 
they  were  the  legal  Conference,  and  fixed  the  time 
and  place  for  the  next  Conference.  It  should  be  ob- 
served at  this  point  that  the  members  of  the  Delaware 
Conference  were  Northerners  merely  in  the  sense  that 
their  charges  were  generally  north  of  Virginia,  for 
there  were  preachers  from  Delaware  and  Maryland 
in  attendance. 

The  printed  Minutes  of  the  Kent  County  Confer- 
ence show  the  following  answer  to  the  question, 
"  Why  was  the  Delaware  Conference  held  ?"  " Ans. 
For  the  convenience  of  the  preachers  in  the  North- 
ern stations,  that  we  all  might  have  an  opportunity  of 
meeting  in  Conference,  it  being  unadvisable  for 
Brother  Asbury  and  Brother  RufF,  with  some  others, 
to  attend  in  Virginia;  it  is  considered  also  as  pre- 
paratory to  the  Conference  .in  Virginia.  Our  senti- 
ments to  be  given  in  by  Brother  Watters." l 

So  the  Rev.  Jesse  Lee  states  that  "  the  preachers 
in  the  Northern  States  held  a  preparatory  Conference 
at  Thomas  White's,  in  Delaware  State,  in  order  that 

»  Printed  Minutes,  1773-1813,  p.  19. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     135 

their  sentiments  might  be  carried  by  Brother  William 
Watters  to  the  Conference  in  Virginia;  for  it  was 
judged  to  be  improper  for  Brother  Asbury  to  leave 
his  solitary  retreat,  to  go  to  Virginia."1 

Originally  it  may  have  been  thought  that  it  would 
be  a  preparatory  Conference ;  but  it  acted  as  though 
it  was  the  legal  Conference,  and  treated  the  other  as 
a  seceding  body.  It  might  be  called  a  preparatory 
meeting  of  a  portion  of  the  preachers,  if,  after  com- 
ing to  a  conclusion  as  to  their  proper  attitude  on  the 
sacramental  question,  they  had  then  gone  on  to  Flu- 
vanna  and  taken  their  places  in  the  regularly  ordered 
session.  Instead  of  that,  they  transacted  business  as 
the  Conference,  fixed  the  time  and  place  for  their  next 
annual  session,  received  their  appointments,  and  went  to 
their  charges,  satisfying  themselves  with  sending  a  letter 
and  a  messenger  to  the  regular  Conference  in  Virginia. 

The  convenience  of  Mr.  Asbury  or  any  other  in- 
dividual preacher  was  not  enough  to  justify  such  a 
course ;  and  at  that  time  Asbury  had  no  rank  higher 
than  that  of  the  majority  of  the  preachers. 

The  student  of  history  can  not  resist  the  con- 
clusion that'  this  so-called  Conference  was  held  be- 
cause it  was  known  that  the  legal  Conference  would 
consider  the  sacramental  question,  and  it  was  believed 
the  majority  would  authorize  the  preachers  to  admin- 
ister the  sacraments  to  their  own  people.  It  was,  so 
to  speak,  a  flank  movement  to  consolidate  those  who 
were  opposed  to  this  action,  and  regarding  the  Flu- 
vanna  session  as  the  regular  Conference,  the  call  for 

i  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  67. 


136    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

this  meeting  was  of  a  revolutionary  character,  while 
the  whole  movement  suggests  Asbury's  acute  man- 
agement. 

The  only  justification  for  such  a  course  was  in  the 
supposed  necessity  for  such  an  act  in  order  to  preserve 
the  unity  of  Wesleyan  Methodism.  Asbury  held 
that  Wesley  was  the  head  of  American  as  well  as 
British  Methodism;  and,  therefore,  that  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  Americans  to  adhere  to  Wesley's  teach- 
ings and  the  agreement  of  the  first  American  Con- 
ference, which  was  to  receive  the  sacraments  from  the 
Church  of  England  clergymen. 

As  Asbury  and  those  who  met  in  Conference  with 
him  at  Judge  White's  held  these  views,  they  looked 
upon  themselves  as  the  true  Wesleyan  Methodists, 
and  considered  those  who  were  in  favor  of  having 
the  sacraments  from  the  Methodist  preachers  as  being 
"  in  danger  of  separating"  from  them. 

Still  the  Northern  preachers  erred  in  acting  before 
the  regular  Conference  had  convened  and  decided. 
Admitting  that  it  was  right  for  them  to  hold  their 
"  preparatory  Conference,"  or  caucus,  to  decide  upon  a 
policy,  they  should  then  have  gone  to  the  regular 
Conference,  and,  as  members  of  that  body,  expressed 
their  views,  and  endeavored  to  persuade  others  to 
agree  with  them.  No  one  can  tell  what  might  have 
been  the  effect.  The  result  of  subsequent  negoti- 
ations suggest,  that  they  might  have  succeeded;  but 
if  they  had  failed,  then  they  would  have  had  stronger 
reasons  for  forming  a  new  Conference.  As  it  was, 
they  took  the  surest  way  to  precipitate  the  very 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     137 

action  they  deprecated;  for  by  their  absence  they 
left  the  May  Conference  overwhelmingly  under  the 
influence  of  those  who  favored  the  change. 

With  one  exception,  all  the  preachers  who  at- 
tended the  meeting  in  Delaware  absented  themselves 
from  the  regular  Conference;  and, "  under  these  circum- 
stances, the  Virginia  Conference  complained  that  an 
illegal  Conference  had  been  held,  to  keep  as  many  of 
the  Northern  preachers  from  the  session  as  possible, 
lest  they  should  join  with  them  in  adopting  the 
ordinances." l 

They  anticipated  the  action,  and  practically  se- 
ceded before  the  deed  was  done;  and  their  only 
defense  is  in  the  fact  that  they  adhered  to  Wesley  and 
the  English  Minutes  and  to  the  former  agreement  of 
the  American  Conference. 

The  printed  Minutes  of  this  "so-called"2  prepar- 
atory Conference  contain  much  that  is  exceedingly 
interesting.  For  the  first  time  we  find  the  question, 
"Who  desist  from  traveling?"  The  following  con- 
clusions were  reached,  namely: 

"  No  helper  to  make  any  alteration  in  the  circuit, 
or  appoint  preaching  in  any  new  place,  without  con- 
sulting the  assistant." 

"  Every  exhorter  and  local  preacher  to  go  by  the 
directions  of  the  assistants  where,  and  only  where, 
they  shall  appoint." 

Question  11  was,  "What  shall  be  done  with  the 
children  ?"  and  to  this  the  answer  was  :  "  Meet  them 


l Leroy  M.  Lee,  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  1860,  pp.  81  and  82. 
•  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  p.  67. 

10 


138    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

once  a  fortnight,  and  examine  the  parents  with  re- 
gard to  their  conduct  toward  them." 

Question  10  was  the  key  to  at  least  part  of  the 
reason  for  the  assembling  of  these  preachers.  It  was: 
"Shall  we  guard  against  a  separation  from  the  Church, 
directly  or  indirectly?"  The  answer  given  was:  "  By 
all  means." 

The  12th  and  13th  questions  are  the  most  impor- 
tant and  suggestive.  Question  12  was:  "Ought  not 
Brother  Asbury  to  act  as  general  assistant  in  Amer- 
ica?" The  answer  was:  "He  ought :  1st.  On  account 
of  his  age;  2d.  Because  originally  appointed  by  Mr. 
Wesley;  3d.  Being  joined  with  Messrs.  Rankin  and 
Shadford  by  express  order  from  Mr.  Wesley." 

This  was  a  good  deal  for  this  "  preparatory  Con- 
ference" to  do.  It  only  contained  about  one-third  of 
the  American  preachers;  and  it  is  not  clear  that, 
if  all  the  preachers  had  met  together  in  Confer- 
ence, they  would  have  taken  precisely  this  action. 
Mr.  Asbury  was  the  senior,  and,  as  such,  would  have 
been  respected.  He  had  been  appointed  assistant  by 
Mr.  Wesley ;  but  in  a  short  time  he  was  superseded 
by  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Rankin  as  general  assist- 
ant, which  title  Mr.  Asbury  had  never  borne ;  and,  as 
we  have  seen,  Asbury  had  been  recalled  to  England 
by  Mr.  Wesley.  As  Dr.  Stevens  remarks  on  the  3d 
part  of  the  answer,  "  The  last  reason  is  ambiguous."  • 

This  meeting  practically  elected  Mr.  Asbury  gen- 
eral assistant,  and  he  thus  became  the  head  of  a 
section  of  the  American  preachers.  Possibly  this  was 

1  A.  Sie  veiis,  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  VoL  II,  p  57 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     139 

part  of  the  "  agreeable  news "  he  had  heard  on  the 
30th  of  March.  The  most  remarkable  act,  however. 
<ia  to  be  found  in  the  answer  to  the  13th  question: 
"  How  far  shall  his  power  extend?"  This  query  as 
to  his  power  was  answered  as  follows : 

"  On  hearing  every  preacher  for  and  against  what 
is  in  debate,  the  right  of  determination  shall  rest 
with  him,  according  to  the  Minutes;"1  that  is  to  say, 
"  The  Large  Minutes  "  collated  by  Wesley.  Bangs, 
commenting  on  this  action,  says :  "  It  seems,  there- 
fore, that  they  were  not  in  the  habit,  at  that  time,  of 
determining  debatable  questions  by  a  majority  of 
votes;  but,  in  imitation  of  the  practice  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, after  hearing  all  that  could  be  said  pro  and  con, 
the  presiding  officer  decided  the  point." 2  These 
"  Northern "  preachers  had  thus  placed  themselves 
under  the  absolute  control  of  Mr.  Asbury,  not  only 
as  to  their  appointments,  but  also  as  to  Conference 
action.  They  might  debate  questions,  but  he,  and  he 
only,  had  the  power  to  decide.  It  was  apparently  a 
voluntary  submission  to  personal  government  at  a  time 
when  the  circumstances  of  their  isolation  from  Wes- 
ley, and  the  Declaration  of  Independence  on  the  part 
of  the  Colonies,  rendered  it  possible  for  them  to  take 
the  government  into  their  own  hands. 

In  answer  to  the  sixth  question,  "  Who  of  the 
preachers  are  willing  to  take  the  station  this  Con- 
ference shall  place  them  in,  and  continue  till  next 


» Printed  Minutes.  1773-1813,  p.  20. 

«N.  Bangs,  D.  D.,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  New 
York,  1857,  lOih  Ed.,  Vol.  I,  pp.  131  aiid  132. 


140   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Conference?"1  sixteen  preachers  said  that  they 
would.  This  was  a  new  question,  and  evidently  was 
part  of  the  process  of  consolidating  the  Northern 
preachers  in  view  of  the  probable  dissent  of  the 
regular  Conference.  Another  act  of  the  same  char- 
acter was  appointing  their  next  Annual  Confer- 
ence to  be  held  in  Baltimore  on  the  last  Tuesday 
of  the  next  April.  May  was  the  regular  month  for 
the  holding  of  the  regular  Conference,  and  fixing 
April  for  this  new  body  was  to  effectually  prevent 
the  coalescence  of  its  members  with  the  majority,  who 
met  in  the  regular  Conference.  So  this  irregular 
Conference  acted  as  the  legal  Conference,  and  treated 
the  regularly  called  Conference  as  separatists  in  ad- 
vance of  their  taking  any  action,  and  also  made  such 
arrangements  as  insured  a  permanent  division,  unless 
the  majority  yielded  to  their  views.  In  a  little  while 
the  time  arrived  for  the  holding  of  the  regular  Con- 
ference, which  convened  at  the  Broken-back  Church, 
in  Fluvanna  County,  Virginia,  on  the  18th  of  May, 
1779.  This,  Lee  speaks  of  as  the  "  seventh  Confer- 
ence," counting  the  one  in  Delaware  as  a  "  prepara- 
tory Conference."2 

The  Rev.  William  "Waiters,  who  attended  the  Dela- 
ware meeting,  also  attended  the  Conference  in  Vir- 
ginia. Watters  received  "  no  notice  "  of  the  proposed 
Conference  at  Judge  White's,  but  hearing  of  it  in- 
directly, he  "  determined,  if  possible,"  to  get  there, 
"  though  in  a  very  weak  state  of  health,"  in  order 

>  Minutes,  1773-1813,  p.  18. 

•  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  p.  67. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     141 

that  he  might  persuade  "Asbury  to  attend  the  regu- 
larly appointed  Conference,  to  be  held  on  the  18th 
of  May,  1779,  in  Fluvanna  County."  l  If  Watters 
knew  nothing  of  the  proposed  Conference  with  As- 
bury by  direct  notification,  it  is  probable  that  others 
received  "no  notice"  of  it,  and  that  only  those  were 
invited  who  were  known  to  agree  on  the  main  prin- 
ciple involved.  He  did  not  succeed  in  inducing  Mr. 
Asbury  to  attend  the  legal  Conference,  but  was 
specially  commissioned  to  communicate  to  the  Vir- 
ginia Conference  the  "sentiments"  of  the  Delaware 
meeting,  "as  a  kind  of  protest  against  the  adoption 
of  any  measures " 2  in  favor  of  administering  the 
sacraments.  Mr.  Watters  was  the  only  preacher  who 
attended  both  Conferences.  He  had  been  elected 
the  year  before  to  preside  over  the  Conference,  be- 
cause he  was  the  senior  preacher.  Whether  he  pre- 
sided this  year  we  do  not  know;  but  it  is  significant 
that  the  printed  Minutes  of  the  Fluvanna  Conference 
place  his  name  last  in  the  list  of  assistants,  and  put 
the  name  of  James  O'Kelly  first,  while  in  the  list  in 
Asbury's  Conference  of  the  next  year  the  name  of 
William  Watters  stands  next  to  that  of  Asbury.  The 
explanation  is  evident.  Mr.  Watters  did  not  approve 
of  the  action  taken  by  the  Virginia  Conference,  and 
so  lost  his  popularity  in  the  one  and  gave  his  adher- 
ence to  the  other. 

This  Conference  was  composed  of  over  two-thirds 


'Waiters'*  Life,  p.  72;  A.  Stevens,  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  Vol.  II,  pp.  60,  61. 

<  Lcroy  M.  Lee,  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  p.  8L 


142    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

of  the  preachers  in  America,  and  it  covered  twice  as 
many  charges  as  were  represented  at  Judge  White's. 
It  was,  therefore,  not  only  the  legal,  but,  at  the  same 
time,  the  representative  Conference.  The  printed 
Minutes  of  both  Conferences  mention  Baltimore  and 
Frederick,  with  the  names  of  the  same  preachers.  The 
printed  Minutes  of  the  Conference  held  at  Fluvanna 
contain  four  new  questions.  The  first  question  was 
changed  from  "What  preachers  are  admitted  this 
year?"  to  "Who  are  admitted  on  trial?"  It  was 
asked,  "  What  shall  be  done  with  the  preachers  who 
were  upon  trial  last  year?"  and  it  was  answered,  "To 
be  continued  till  next  Conference."  Lee  says:  "Be- 
fore this  Conference,  it  had  been  a  constant  practice 
to  take  a  preacher  upon  trial  for  one  year  only,  and 
then  admit  him  into  full  connection.  But  from  that 
time  it  has  been  a  constant  practice,  even  to  the 
present  day,  to  keep  a  young  preacher  on  trial  for  two 
years  at  least  before  he  is  admitted  into  full  con- 
nection ;  and  at  the  expiration  of  two  years,  if  the 
Conference  have  doubts  concerning  the  piety,  gifts, 
or  usefulness  of  the  preacher,  they  continue  him  on 
trial  for  three  years,  or  a  longer  time,  as  they  may 
judge  best." » 

"  Shall  any  preacher  receive  quarterage  who  i? 
able  to  travel  and  does  not?"  was  answered,  "No." 
"  In  what  light  shall  we  view  those  preachers  who 
receive  money  by  subscription?"  was  answered,  "As 
excluded  from  the  Methodist  connection."  a 


*  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  68. 
•Printed  Minutes,  1773-1813,  p.  22. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.      143 

Strange  to  say,  the  most  important  thing  done  at 
that  Conference  is  not  mentioned  in  the  printed  Min- 
utes. The  Rev.  Freeborn  Garrettson  says :  "  In 
May,  1779,  the  regular  Conference  was  held,  accord- 
ing to  appointment,  in  the  B*oken-back  Church,  Flu- 
vanna  County,  Virginia.  The  question,  "  Shall  we 
administer  the  ordinances?"  was  again  agitated,  and 
was  answered  in  the  affirmative.  Some  of  the  oldest 
preachers  were,  therefore,  set  apart  to  administer  the 
sacraments.  The  troubles  were  such  that  we  of  the 
North  did  not  attend."  l 

Philip  Gatch,  who  was  an  active  participant  in  the 
exciting  scenes  of  this  period,  preserved  in  his  manu- 
script journal  quite  a  full  account  of  this  action.  In 
it  he  records  the  following  questions  and  answers: 

"  Ques.  14.  What  are  our  reasons  for  taking  up  the  admin- 
istration of  the  ordinances  among  us  ? 

"  Ans.  Because  the  Episcopal  establishment  is  now  dis- 
solved, and,  therefore,  in  almost  all  our  circuits  the  members 
are  without  the  ordinances — we  believe  it  to  be  our  duty. 

"  Ques.  15.  What  preachers  do  approve  of  this  step? 

"Ans.  Isham  Tatum,  Charles  Hopkins,  Nelson  Heed, 
Reuben  Ellis,  P.  Gatch,  Thomas  Morris,  James  Morris,  James 
Foster,  John  Major,  Andrew  Yeargan,  Henry  Willis,  Francis 
Poythress,  JoTm  Sigman,  Leroy  Cole,  Carter  Cole,  James 
U'Kelly,  William  Moore,  Samuel  Roe. 

'  Ques.  16.  Is  it  proper  to  have  a  committee? 

'Ans.  Yes,  and  by  the  vote  of  the  preachers. 

'  Ques.  17.  Who  are  the  committee? 
'Ans.  P.  Gatch,  James  Foster,  L.  Cole,  and  R.  Ellis. 
4  Ques.  18.  What  powers  do  the  preachers  vest  in  the  com- 
mittee? 

"  Ant.  They  do  agree  to  observe  all  the  resolutions  of  the 

*  Uarretlson'B  Semi-centennial  Sermon. 


144    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

said  committee,  so  far  as  the  said  committee  shall  adhere  to  the 
Scriptures. 

"  Ques.  19.  What  form  of  ordination  shall  be  observed  to 
authorize  any  preacher  to  administer? 

"An*.  By  that  of  a  presbytery. 

"  Ques.  20.  How  shall  the  presbytery  be  appointed  ? 

"  Ans.  By  a  majority  of  the  preachers. 

"  Ques.  21.  Who  are  the  presbytery  ? 

"Ans.  P.  Gatch,  R.  Ellis,  James  Foster,  and,  in  case  of 
necessity,  Leroy  Cole. 

"  Ques.  22.  What  power  is  vested  in  the  presbytery  by  this 
choice  ? 

"  Ans.  1.  To  administer  the  ordinances  themselves.  2.  To 
authorize  any  other  preacher  or  preachers,  approved  of  by 
them,  by  the  form  of  laying  on  of  hands. 

"  Ques.  23.  What  is  to  be  observed  as  touching  the  admin- 
istration of  the  ordinances,  and  to  whom  shall  they  be  admin- 
istered ? 

"  Ans.  To  those  who  are  under  our  care  and  discipline. 

"  Ques.  24.  Shall  we  rebaptize  any  under  our  care  ? 

"Ans.  No. 

"  Ques.  25.  What  mode  shall  be  adopted  for  the  admin- 
istration of  baptism? 

"  Ans.  Either  sprinkling  or  plunging,  as  the  parent  or  adult 
shall  choose. 

"  Ques.  26.  What  ceremony  shall  be  used  in  the  admin- 
istration ? 

"  Ans.  Let  it  be  according  to  our  Lord's  command  (Matt, 
xxviii,  19),  short  and  extempore. 

"Ques.  27.  Shall  the  sign  of  the  cross  be  used? 

"Ans.  No. 

"  Ques.  28.  Who  shall  receive  the  charge  of  the  child,  after 
baptism,  for  its  future  instruction  ? 

"  Ans.  The  parent  or  persons  who  have  the  care  of  the 
child,  with  advice  from  the  preacher. 

"  Ques.  29.  What  mode  shall  be  adopted  for  the  admin- 
istration of  the  Lord's  Supper? 

"Ans.  Kneeling  is  thought  the  most  proper;  but,  in  cases 
of  conscience,  may  be  left  to  the  choice  of  the  communicant. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     145 

"  Que».  30.  What  ceremony  shall  be  observed  in  tbis  ordi- 
nance ? 

"  Ans.  After  singing,  praying,  and  exhortation,  the  preacher 
delivers  the  bread,  saying,  'The  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,' 
etc.,  after  the  Church  order." 1 

There  are  a  number  of  points  in  the  action  just 
quoted  that  call  for  special  attention.  In  the  first 
place  it  will  be  observed  that  this  Conference  does 
not  concur  in  the  action  of  the  Delaware  meeting,  in 
recognizing  Mr.  Asbury  as  general  assistant.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Watters  conveyed  full  in- 
formation as  to  the  doings  of  the  preachers  at  Judge 
White's,  but  the  regular  Conference  at  Fluvanna  did 
not  even  record  Mr.  Asbury's  name,  much  less  con- 
cede to  him  any  authority  as  Wesley's  general  assist- 
ant. On  the  contrary,  this  Conference  decided  that 
it  was  "proper  to  have  a  committee,"  and  that  the 
committee  should  be  elected  "by  the  vote  of  the 
preachers."  Heretofore  they  had  been  governed  by 
Wesley's  agent  until  they  called  Mr.  Watters  to  the 
chair,  the  previous  year.  Now  being  isolated  from 
Wesley,  and,  in  some  sense,  left  to  govern  themselves, 
they  commit  the  government,  not  to  one  man,  but  to 
a  committee  of  four  men — namely,  Gatch,  Foster,  Cole, 
and  Ellis — and  at  the  same  time  they  put  limitations 
on  the  powers  vested  in  the  committee,  and  reserve 
to  the  Conference  the  right  of  judgment  and  power 
of  dissent,  agreeing  "to  observe  all  the  resolutions 
of  the  said  committee,  so  far  as  the  said  committee 
shall  adhere  to  the  Scriptures." 

>  Qatoh's  Manuscript  Journal ;  Leroy  M.  Lee's  Life  of  Jesse  Lee 
I860,  pp.  79-81. 


146    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

This  was  an  early  effort  at  Conference  government 
through  a  committee,  and  is,  perhaps,  an  outgrowth 
of  the  suggestion  made  in  the  preliminary  meeting 
of  preachers  in  1777,  and  a  modification  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's plan  of  1769.  This  did  not  imply  any  absolute 
breaking  away  from  Wesley  and  the  Large  Minutes, 
but  merely  a  temporary  arrangement  under  circum- 
stances which  would  not  permit  Wesley  to  govern 
directly. 

The  sacramental  matter,  however,  placed  them  in 
a  different  attitude.  They  decided  to  ordain  some  of 
their  preachers,  and  they  presented,  in  justification,  the 
fact  that  the  Revolutionary  War  and  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  had  dissolved  the  Church  of  England  in 
the  United  States,  and  that  nearly  all  their  people  were 
without  the  privilege  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  that  there  were  scarcely  any  to  baptize  their 
children.  These  preachers  were  de  facto  ministers  of 
the  gospel,  and  the  members  of  the  Methodist  socie- 
ties regarded  them  as  ministers  de  jure.  The  law  of 
necessity  asserted  itself,  and  these  men,  who  were  rec- 
ognized as  duly  called  to  preach,  and  who  had  been 
formally  set  apart  from  business  pursuits  to  devote 
their  lives  to  the  ministry,  felt  that,  under  the  circum- 
stances, being  called  to  preach,  they  were  entitled  to 
administer  the  sacraments. 

As  Lee  puts  it,  "  Many  of  our  traveling  preachers 
in  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  seeing  and  feeling 
the  want  of  the  instituted  mean/j  of  grace  among  our 
societies  (and  there  being  but  few  Church  ministers  in 
that  part  of  the  country,  and  most  of  them  strangers 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     147 

to  heart-felt  religion),  concluded  that  if  God  had  called 
them  to  preach,  he  had  called  them  also  to  administer 
the  ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper." ' 
Having  discussed  this  point  in  "  The  Evolution  of 
Episcopacy  and  Organic  Methodism,"2  we  refer  but 
briefly  to  the  reasons  advanced  in  defense  of  the 
action  of  the  Conference. 

They  did  not  propose  episcopal  but  presbyterial 
ordination,  and  so  they  formed  a  presbytery,  consisting 
of  Gatch,  Ellis  and  Foster,  and,  "in  case  of  necessity, 
Leroy  Cole,"  the  same  persons  as  constituted  the  com- 
mittee; four  being  named,  probably,  so  that  at  least 
three  would  take  part  in  each  ordination.  The  Con- 
ference empowered  this  presbytery  to  "administer  the 
ordinances"  and  to  ordain  others.  They  were  among 
the  oldest  preachers,  and  therefore  literally  elders, 
and  now  formally  called  presbyters  by  the  Conference. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  purpose  was  to  provide 
the  sacraments  for  those  under  their  own  care  and 
discipline,  and  that  liberality  of  view  was  expressed 
as  to  the  mode  of  baptism  and  the  form  of  partaking 
of  the  communion  ;  but  the  form  of  words  to  be  em- 
ployed were  to  be  those  of  the  Anglican  service. 

Lee  tells  us  that  "  the  committee  thus  chosen  first 
ordained  themselves,  and  then  proceeded  to  ordain  and 
set  apart  other  preachers  for  the  same  purpose,  that  they 
might  administer  the  holy  ordinances  to  the  Church 
of  Christ.  The  preachers  thus  ordained,  went  forth 

i  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  69. 

*  The  Evolution  of  Episcopacy  and  Organic  Methodism,  by  Rev.  T. 
B.  Neely,  Ph.  D.,  D.  D.;  published,  New  York,  Phillips  audHuut ;  Cin- 
cinnati, Cranston  and  Stowe ;  12mo..  pp.  448. 


148    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

preaching  the  gospel  in  their  circuits  as  formerly,  and 
administered  the  sacraments  wherever  they  went,  pro- 
vided the  people  were  willing  to  partake  with  them." l 
By  this  act  the  regular  Conference  certainly  broke 
away  from  Wesley's  restrictions  and  the  teachings  of 
the  Large  Minutes  on  this  point,  and,  therefore,  though 
the  Conference  believed  it  was  justified  by  the  circum- 
stances, there  was  now  some  ground  for  Asbury's  alle- 
gation that  they  were  separatists.  Asbury's  Confer- 
ence was  a  secession  from  the  regular  Conference,  in 
anticipation  of  a  probable  decision;  but  the  regular 
Conference  had  in  this  one  particular  departed  from 
the  wishes  of  Mr.  Wesley.  While  they  still  consid- 
ered themselves  Methodists  and  in  connection  with 
Mr.  Wesley,  they  had  practically  formed  a  temporary 
Presbyterian  Church.  The  Fluvanna  Conference  di- 
rected that  the  next  session  be  held  at  Manakintown, 
Va.,  on  the  8th  of  May,  1780,  so  that  now  there  were 
really  two  Conferences,  a  Northern  and  a  Southern, 
which  divided  upon  the  sacramental  question ;  but  the 
Conference  to  be  held  in  Virginia  was  the  regular  suc- 
cessor of  the  legal  Conference  of  1779.  It  also  rep- 
resented a  large  majority  of  the  preachers  and  people, 
though  Asbury's  section  might  claim  a  closer  ad- 
herence to  Wesley  and  his  wishes.  Strictly  speaking, 
the  Conference  held  in  Virginia  was  the  seventh  reg- 
ular American  Conference,  while  Asbury's  Conference 
was  irregular,  if  not  absolutely  illegal,  in  every  sense  of 
the  term,  whatever  may  have  been  the  principles  which 
led  to  the  call.  As  related  to  general  American  Meth- 

>  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodlstg,  p.  69. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     149 

odism,  it  was,  at  least  for  the  time  being,  a  faction  and 
a  revolt  against  the  majority,  even  if  its  views  were 
correct.  As  it  was,  American  Methodism  was  di- 
vided. The  Northern  section  refused  to  administer 
the  sacraments,  and  was  governed  by  Asbury,  whose 
authority  was  absolute.  The  Southern  section  had 
the  sacraments,  and  was  governed  by  a  committee  se- 
lected by  the  Conference.  The  former  might  have 
been  called  conservatives;  the  latter,  radicals  or 
progressives. 

The  time  for  the  Conference  of  1780  approaches, 
and  with  it  comes  a  re-discussion  of  the  differences 
between  the  two  bodies.  On  the  1st  of  April,  1780, 
Asbury  makes  this  record :  "  I  received  a  satisfactory 
letter  from  William  Moore ;  he  hopes  a  reconciliation 
will  take  place  in  Virginia  if  healing  measures  are 
adopted." l  This  was  an  olive-branch  from  the  South ; 
for  William  Moore  was  a  member  of  the  Conference 
which  met  at  Fluvanna.2  Asbury  was  still  in  Dela- 
ware, but  actively  engaged.  On  the  12th  and  14th 
of  April  he  notes  that  he  is  employed  in  preparing 
his  papers  for  Conference.  He  had  become  a  citizen 
of  the  State  of  Delaware,3  and  concludes  that  he  may 
venture  out  of  the  territory  to  which  he  had  been 
confined,  so  on  the  20th  he  "  set  off  for  Baltimore." 
When  he  reached  Mr.  Gough's,  in  Baltimore  County, 
he  met  William  Glendenning,  and  observes  that 
"Brother  Glendenning  had  his  objections  to  make, 


*  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  877. 

*  Minutes, 

*  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  281. 


150    GOVKRNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

and  pleaded  some  in  favor  of  the  Virginia  brethren 
who  had  made  a  division."1  So  he  still  puts  the 
burden  on  the  "  Virginia  brethren,"  whereas  they 
met  in  the  regular  Conference,  and  his  section  of  the 
preachers  did  not  attend  the  regular  Conference,  but 
formed  a  Conference  of  their  own,  and  so  withdrew 
from  the  connection  with  the  regular  Conference  be- 
fore it  committed  any  overt  act.  From  this  point  of 
view  Asbury's  party  made  the  division.  They  sep- 
arated from  the  Conference,  though  the  regular 
American  Conference  departed  from  Wesley's  instruc- 
tions and  from  its  original  resolution  of  1773.  On 
the  24th  of  April,  Asbury  "  made  a  plan  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  preachers,"  "  received  three  epis- 
tles from  the  Jerseys,  soliciting  three  or  four 
preachers,"  and  the  same  day  reached  Baltimore.2 
The  printed  Minutes  state  that  Asbury's  Conference 
convened  in  the  city  of  Baltimore  on  the  24th  of 
April,  1780 ;  but  the  24th  was  Monday,  and  the  Con- 
ference had  been  appointed  for  "  the  last  Tuesday  in 
April."  3  Further,  Asbury  enters  in  his  journal,  under 
date  of  Tuesday,  25th :  "  Our  Conference  met  in 
peace  and  love."  We  must  conclude,  therefore,  that 
although  the  preachers  may  have  reached  Baltimore 
on  the  24th,  they  did  not  enter  upon  their  business 
until  the  25th  day  of  April.  Lee  calls  this  the  eighth 
Conference."4  But  in  this  he  is  inconsistent,  for  he 
does  not  count  the  Delaware  Conference  of  the  pre- 

i  Asbury fs  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  pp.  280.  *ld.  pp.  280,281. 

•Id.  p,  238. 

« Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  p.  70. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     15J 

vious  year  as  anything  more  than  a  preparatory  Con- 
ference called  for  convenience,  which  was  the  pro- 
genitor of  this  Baltimore  session,  while  he  speaks 
of  the  Conference  of  Fluvanna  as  "the  Seventh 
Conference." ! 

If  the  Fluvanua  Conference  was  the  regular  Con- 
ference, and  the  seventh  in  order,  then  the  Confer- 
ence by  it  regularly  appointed  would  be  its  regular 
successor,  and  be  properly  termed  the  eighth  Confer- 
ence, while  the  Conference  at  Baltimore  was  simply 
the  successor  of  an  irregular  meeting,  which  Lee 
could  not  count  as  a  Conference  at  all. 

Nevertheless  the  Northern  section  has  grown  con- 
siderably during  the  year,  and  gives  promise  of  be- 
coming the  leading  Conference.  The  year  before, 
Baltimore  was  counted  in  ihe  lists  of  both  Confer- 
ences. This  year  it  appears  only  in  Asbury's  Con- 
ference. According  to  the  printed  Minutes,  the  same 
is  true  of  Frederick.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
preachers  at  both  places,  with  the  exception  that 
William  Adams,  who,  on  Asbury's  list  of  1779,  was 
assigned  to  Baltimore,  this  year  appears  in  the  Vir- 
ginia list,  while  Philip  Adams  appears  to  have  left 
the  latter  Conference  and  connected  himself  with 
Asbury's.  Berkley  was  the  previous  year  only  on 
the  Southern  list ;  this  year  the  charge,  as  well  as  its 
preachers — John  Tunnell  and  John  Hagerty — have 
come  to  the  Northern  Conference.  In  1779,  at  Asbury's 
Conference,  seven  charges,  including  Baltimore  and 
Frederick,  were  named;  while  at  the  regular  Confer- 

>  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  p.  87. 


152    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

ence  held  at  Fluvanna  there  were  fourteen  circuits, 
including  the  two  places  claimed  in  common.  In  1780, 
Asbury  gained  two  circuits ;  so  that,  counting  New  Jer- 
sey and  Philadelphia  as  two,  for  they  had  been  divided, 
he  now  had  ten  charges;  while  the  Southern  Confer- 
ence, according  to  the  printed  Minutes,  had  dropped  to 
ten.  So  the  Minutes  show  that  this  year  Asbury 
gave  twenty-two  men  appointments,  while  the  South- 
ern Conference  assigned  twenty.  There  may  be  some 
qualifying  facts  on  the  one  side  or  the  other,  but  it 
is  manifest  that  Asbury  was  getting  a  stronger  hold. 
The  fact  that  he  was  the  senior  preacher,  and  that  he 
had  been  sent  to  America  by  Wesley,  had  very  much 
to  do  with  this;  but  something  must  be  attributed  to 
the  cautious  spirit  of  the  Northern  preachers,  and  a 
doubt  as  to  the  propriety  of  administering  the  sacra- 
ments without  Wesley's  consent. 

The  first  question  that  was  asked  was:  "What 
preachers  do  now  agree  to  sit  in  Conference  on  the 
original  plan  as  Methodists?"  The  "original  plan" 
was  expressed  in  the  resolution  of  the  first  Confer- 
ence, which  was  held  in  1773:  "  Every  preacher  who 
acts  in  connection  with  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  brethren 
who  labor  in  America,  is  strictly  .to  avoid  adminis- 
tering the  ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper." 

Thus  the  seceding  body,  which  had  been  ir- 
regularly called  and  had  broken  away  from  the 
majority  of  the  previous  year,  placed  itself  formally 
upon  the  basis  of  the  first  Conference,  claiming  that 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     153 

to  be  the  only  Methodistic  course,  and  practically  de- 
claring that  the  preachers  who  did  not  agree  with 
them  were  not  Methodists.  The  printed  Minutes 
give  the  names  of  twenty-four  preachers  as  respond- 
ing to  this  question  in  the  affirmative. 

The  Virginia  preachers  believed  that  their  course 
was  necessitated  by  existing  conditions,  but  they  did 
not  desire  a  division  in  American  Methodism.  To 
help  prevent  a  permanent  division,  two  of  their  num- 
ber— Philip  Gatch  and  Reuben  Ellis — appeared  at 
Asbury's  Conference,  and  endeavored  "to  prevent  a 
total  disunion ;" l  but  they  found  little  encouragement 
and  no  sympathy.  They  complained  that  the  North- 
ern brethren  dealt  "hardly  with  them,"  and  that 
u  there  was  little  appearance  of  anything  but  an  entire 
separation."  To  this  charge,  however,  they  made  one 
exception,  declaring  that  Mr.  Waiters  "  was  the  only 
one  tttat  treated  them  with  affection  and  tenderness." 
The  fact  is  that  Asbury  and  his  followers  looked  upon 
the  others  as  having  departed  from  the  faith  and 
practice  of  the  Wesleyan  Methodists,  and  that  in  this 
they  were  not  to  be  tolerated.  Asbury,  under  date 
of  "  Tuesday,  25th,"  gives  the  following  brief  account 
of  his  Conference : 

"We  settled  all  our  Northern  stations;  then  we 
began  in  much  debate  about  the  letter  sent  from  Vir- 
ginia. We  first  concluded  to  renounce  them.  Then  I 
offered  conditions  of  union  : 

"  I.  That  they  should  ordain  no  more. 

»LlTe  ol  Win.  Walters,  pp.  79-8L 

11 


154   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"  II.  That  they  should  come  no  further  than  Han- 
over Circuit. 

"  III.  That  we  would  have  our  delegates  in  their 
Conference. 

"IV.  That  they  should  not  presume  to  admin- 
ister the  ordinances  where  there  is  a  decent  Episcopal 
minister. 

"  V.  To  have  a  Union  Conference. 

"  These  would  not  do,  as  we  found  upon  long  de- 
bate, and  we  came  back  to  our  determinations;  al- 
though it  was  like  death  to  think  of  parting.  At 
last  a  thought  struck  my  mind,  to  propose  a  suspen- 
sion of  the  ordinances  for  one  year,  and  so  cancel  all 
our  grievances  and  be  one.  It  was  agreed  on  both 
sides;  and  Philip  Gatch  and  Reuben  Ellis,  that  had 
been  very  stiff,  came  into  it,  and  thought  it  would 
do."  On  the  27th  he  writes:  "Joseph  Cromwell 
and  Freeborn  Garrettson  spoke.  At  the  recommend- 
ation of  the  Conference,  William  Watters,  too. 
These  three  volunteered,  and  were  to  be  my  spokes- 
men. Myself  and  Brother  Garrettson  are  going  to 
the  Virginia  Conference  to  bring  about  peace  and 
union." l 

The  Minutes  state  that  Asbury,  Garrettson,  and 
Watters  were  appointed  to  visit  the  Conference  in 
Virginia. 

At  this  point  we  should  quote  the  whole  of  the 
action  of  the  Conference  on  the  sacramental  question 
and  the  division,  as  given  in  the  printed  Minutes.  It 

» Asbury 'e  Journal.  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  281. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     155 

is    continued   in    the    following    questions    and    an- 
swers : 

"  Ques.  12.  Shall  we  continue  in  close  connection  with 
the  Church,  and  press  our  people  to  a  closer  communion 
with  her? 

"Ant.  Yes. 

"  Ques.  13.  Will  this  Conference  grant  the  privilege  to  all 
the  friendly  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England,  at  the  request 
or  desire  of  the  people,  to  preach  or  administer  the  ordinances 
in  our  preaching-houses  or  chapels  ? 

"  Ans.  Yes.  ,    ,  ' 

"  Ques.  20.  Does  this  whole  Conference  disapprove  the 
step  our  brethren  have  taken  in  Virginia  ? 

"An*.  Yes. 

"  Ques.  21.  Do  we  look  upon  them  no  longer  as  Meth- 
odists in  connection  with  Mr.  Wesley  and  us  till  they  come 
back? 

"Ans.  Agreed. 

"Ques.  22.  Shall  Brothers  Asbury,  Garrettson,  and  Watters 
attend  the  Virginia  Conference,  and  inform  them  of  our  pro- 
ceedings in  this,  and  receive  their  answer? 

"Ans.  Yes. 

"  Ques.  26.  What  must  be  the  conditions  of  our  union 
with  our  Virginia  brethren  ? 

"Ans.  To  suspend  all  their  administrations  toi  one  year, 
and  all  meet  together  in  Baltimore." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  seceding  body  as- 
sumes practically  to  excommunicate  the  members  of 
the  regular  Conference. 

Asbury's  followers  not  only  disapprove  of  the  ac- 
tion of  the  majority  in  the  legal  Conference  of  the 
previous  year,  but  also  declare  they  will  not  look 
upon  those  who  remained  in  the  regular  Confer- 
ence "  as  Methodists  in  connection  with  Mr.  "Wesley  " 


156    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

and  themselves,  "  till  they  come  back ;"  and  the  ulti- 
matum was  that  they  should  suspend  "their  administra- 
tions for  one  year,  and  all  meet  together  in  Baltimore." 
In  other  words,  it  was  demanded  that  those  who  had  not 
withdrawn  from  the  regular  Conference  should  come 
to  the  seceders  and  accept  their  terms.  Not  only  did 
Asbury's  Conference  do  that,  but  it  also  emphasized 
the  idea  of  "  closer  communion >J  with  the  Church  of 
England,  and  of  taking  the  sacraments  from  her 
clergy,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  English 
State  Church  had  been  badly  shattered,  and  that  very 
few  of  its  clergy  were  left  in  the  country.1 

This  covers  the  action  of  the  Northern  Confer- 
ence upon  this  particular  point ;  but  there  were  other 
questions  considered  by  this  body.  Thus  the  proper 
settlement  and  care  of  the  chapel  property  brought 
out  the  following  question  and  answer: 

"  Quef.  7.  Ought  not  all  the  assistants  to  see  to  the  settling 
of  all  the  preaching-houses  by  trustees,  and  order  the  said 
trustees  to  meet  once  in  half  a  year,  and  keep  a  register  of 
their  proceedings;  if  there  are  any  vacancies,  choos^  new  trus 
tees  for  the  better  security  of  the  houses;  and  let  all  the 
deeds  be  drawn,  in  substance,  after  that  in  the  printed 
Minutes? 

"Aru.  Yes." 

Or  as  Mr.  Lee  states  it:  "That  all  the  assistants 
should  see  to  the  settling  of  all  our  meeting-houses 
by  trustees,  and  for  regular  deeds  to  be  taken  for  the 
houses."  * 


•  See  Evolution  of  Episcopacy  »nd  Organic  Methodism,  pp.  HO- 1.07 

*  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  p.  71. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     157 

It  was  decided  that  "all  the  traveling  preachers" 
should  "take  a  license  from  every  Conference,  im- 
porting that  they  are  assistants  or  helpers  in  connec- 
tion with  us ;"  which  appears  to  mean  Asbury's  Con- 
ference, and  the  certificate  was  to  bear  the  signature 
of  Mr.  Asbury.  As  to  the  local  preachers  and  ex- 
horters,  it  was  strictly  enjoined  "  that  no  one  presume 
to  speak  in  public  without  taking  a  note  every  quarter 
(if  required),"  and  "that  they  be  examined  by  the 
assistant  with  respect  to  his  life,  his  qualification,  and 
reception." 

The  following  question  and  answer,  given  at  this 
Conference,  might  not  be  so  popular  or  supposed  to 
be  necessary  to-day : 

"  Ques.  11.  Ought  not  all  our  preachers  to  make  conscience 
of  rising  at  four,  and,  if  not,  yet  at  live  (is  it  not  a  shame  for 
a  preacher  to  be  in  bed  till  six  in  the  morning)  ? 

"  Ans.  Undoubtedly  they  ought." 

It  was  decided  that  the  wives  of  married  preach- 
ers should  "receive  an  equivalent  with  their  hus- 
bands in  quarterage,  if  they  stand  in  need."  It  was 
declared  that  "  our  preachers,  if  possible,"  should 
"speak  to  every  person,  one  by  one,  in  the  families 
where  they  lodge,  before  prayer,  if  time  will  permit, 
or  give  a  family  exhortation  after  reading  a  chapter." 

The  Conference  took  a  stand  upon  the  temper- 
ance question,  and  asked : 

"  Ques.  23.  Do  we  disapprove  of  the  practice  of  distilling 
grain  into  liquor?  Shall  we  disown  our  friends  who  will  not 
renounce  the  practice? 

"Ant.  Yea." 


158   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

On  the  question  of  slavery  this  Northern  Confer- 
ence, which  extended  into  Maryland  and  other  slave 
territory,  entered  its  protest,  "anticipating  its  abo- 
lition in  Massachusetts  by  three  years,  in  Rhode 
Island  and  Connecticut  by  four  years;  the  thesis  of 
Clarkson  before  the  University  of  Cambridge,  by 
five  years;  and  the  Ordinance  of  Congress  against  it 
in  the  Northwestern  Territory,  by  seven  years." l 

The  action  appears  in  these  interrogatories  and 
replies : 

"  Ques.  16.  Ought  not  this  Conference  to  require  those  trav- 
eling preachers  who  hold  slaves,  to  give  promises  to  set  them 
tree? 

"An*.  Yes. 

"  Ques.  17.  Does  this  Conference  acknowledge  that  slavery 
is  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  man,  and  nature,  and  hurtful 
to  society,  contrary  to  the  dictates  of  conscience  and  pure  re- 
Hgion,  and  doing  that  which  we  would  not  others  should 
do  to  us  and  ours?  Do  we  paes  our  disapprobation  on  all 
our  friends  who  keep  slaves,  and  advise  their  freedom? 

"  Ana.  Yes." 

The  following  question  and  answer  appear  to  have 
been  something  of  a  concession  to  existing  con- 
ditions : 

"  Ques.  25.  Ought  not  the  assistant  to  meet  the  colored 
people  himself,  and  appoint  as  helpers  in  his  absence  proper 
white  persons,  and  not  suffer  them  to  stay  late  and  meet  by 
themselves? 

"Ana.  Yes." 

This  probably  gave  the  preachers  an  opportunity 
to  preach  to  the  slaves  without  exciting  the  suspicion 
of  their  owners,  who  even  at  that  day  did  not  know 

>A.  Stevens,  History   of   the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  1865, 
VoL  II,  p.  78. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     159 

what  schemes  might  be  resorted  to  by  the  slaves  for 
the  purpose  of  gaining  their  freedom.  The  Confer- 
ence recommended  that  the  quarterly  meetings  "  be 
held  on  Saturdays  and  Sundays,  when  convenient," 
and  that  "the  Friday  following  every  quarter-day 
be  appointed  as  a  day  of  fasting."  Lee  mentions 
that  in  the  early  days  "  it  was  customary  to  have  the 
quarterly  meeting  on  Tuesday,  and  to  preach,  settle 
their  business,  and  hold  a  love-feast,  and  sometimes  a 
watch-night.  After  a  while  it  became  a  custom,  in 
country  places,  for  the  quarterly  meeting  to  continue 
for  two  days  together.  After  further  trial,  it  was 
thought  best  to  have  the  quarterly  meetings  on  Sat- 
urday and  Sunday,  which  is  now  the  constant  practice 
in  most  places.  One  weighty  reason  for  this  plan  was 
that  many  of  the  slaves  could  not  attend  these  meet- 
ings except  on  the  Lord's-day;  another  reason  was 
that  many  of  the  wealthy  people  would  come  to  hear 
us  on  the  Sabbath,  at  such  meetings,  who  would  not 
be  at  the  trouble  of  coming  to  meeting  on  any 
other  day ;  and,  lastly,  many  of  the  poor  people — 
especially  those  of  our  own  society — could  not  spare 
time  or  procure  horses  to  come  to  such  meetings, 
unless  they  were  on  the  Sabbath."  * 

One  of  the  questions  called  out  one  of  the  most 
important  decisions  of  the  Conference.  Mr.  Asbury 
was  then  their  absolute  head,  but  he  might  die,  or 
he  might  not  be  able  to  attend  the  Conference  session. 
Provision,  therefore,  was  made  for  this  possibility. 


1  Jes»e  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  43. 


160  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"  Ques.  24.  What  shall  the  Conference  do  in  case  of  Brother 
Asbury's  death  or  absence? 

"Ans.  Meet  once  a  year,  and  act  according  to  the  Min- 
utes." » 

This  provided  for  the  perpetuity  of  Asbury's 
Conference,  with  the  agreement  that  they  would  ad- 
here to  the  "  Large  Minutes  "  as  their  written  law ; 
so  that,  even  if  Asbury  was  taken  away,  the  North- 
ern Conference  would  not  blend  with  the  Southern 
if,  in  their  judgment,  it  implied  an  act  contrary  to 
the  "  Minutes." 

The  Conference  at  Baltimore  has  ended,  and  our 
minds  turn  to  the,  eighth  regular  Conference,  which  was 
to  meet  in  Virginia.  On  the  1st  of  May  Asbury  writes 
in  his  journal :  "  I  am  going  to  Virginia."  On  the  4th 
he  says:  "Prepared  some  papers  for  Virginia  Confer- 
ence. I  go  with  a  heavy  heart,  and  fear  the  violence  of 
a  party  of  positive  men" — a  rather  peculiar  remark  from 
one  of  the  most  positive  of  men.  On  the  5th  Asbury 
came  to  the  home  of  a  Mr.  Arnold,  and  he  says :  "  We 
found  the  plague  was  begun ;  the  good  man  Arnold 
was  warm  for  the  ordinances."  On  the  7th  he 
remarks:  "On  entering  into  Virginia,  I  have  pre- 
pared some  papers  for  the  Conference,  and  expect 
trouble."  On  Monday,  the  8th,  he  says:  "We  rode 
to  Granger's,  fifteen  miles;  stopped,  and  fed  our 
horses.  These  people  are  full  of  the  ordinances. 
We  talked  and  prayed  with  them,  then  rode  on  to 
the  Manakintowu  ferry,  much  fatigued  with  the 
ride ;  went  to  friend  Smith's,  where  all  the  preachers 

i  Printed  Minutes,  1773-1813,  pp.  23-28. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.       161 

were  met.  I  conducted  myself  with  cheerful  free- 
dom, but  found  there  was  a  separation  in  heart  and 
practice.  I  spoke  with  my  countryman,  John  Dickins, 
and  found  him  opposed  to  our  continuance  in  union 
with  the  Episcopal  Church.  Brothers  Waiters  and  Gar-, 
rettson  tried  their  men,  and  found  them  inflexible."  l 
So  it  seems  that  the  work  had  been  systematized,  and 
each  of  the  three  was  to  see  and  endeavor  to  influence 
particular  parties ;  but  the  private  attempt  resulted  in 
failure.  This  is  not  surprising,  nor  is  the  fact  as- 
tonishing that  the  first  appeal  in  the  Conference 
was  doomed  to  disappointment.  The  Virginia  Con- 
ference was  the  regular  Conference  in  order  of 
succession,  and  this  -particular  session  had  been 
ordered  by  a  large  majority  of  the  American  min- 
isters. Its  members  had  strong  convictions,  and  be- 
lieved that  their  course  was  justified  by  the  law  of 
necessity  and  the  needs  of  the  people  to  whom  they 
ministered.  In  its  membership  we  find  John  Dick- 
ins,  whose  fame  lives  to  this  day.  Born  in  London 
in  1746,  and  educated  partly  in  London  and  partly  at 
the  famous  Eton  College,  he  came  to  America  some 
time  before  the  Revolutionary  War.  He  joined 
the  Methodists  in  America  in  1774,  and  became  a 
regular  preacher  in  1777.  This  cultured  man,  with 
his  knowledge  of  Latin,  Greek,  and  mathematics, 
as  well  as  other  branches  of  the  learning  of  that  day, 
was  a  great  intellectual  force  among  the  American 
Methodists;  and,  with  his  broad  views,  did  very 
much  to  expand  the  work  and  enlarge  the  influence 

i  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  pp.  282,  283. 


162    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

of  Methodism  in  the  new  nation.  It  was  this  man 
who,  a  little  later  in  this  very  year,  framed  a  sub- 
scription paper  for  a  seminary  on  the  plan  of  Wes- 
ley's Kingswood  School,  thus  starting  the  first  pro- 
ject of  a  literary  institution  among  the  American 
Methodists;  and  to  this  classical  scholar  is  conceded 
the  honor  of  founding,  a  few  years  later,  the  great 
Methodist  Book  Concern. 

About  a  month  after  this  Conference,  Asbury,  under 
date  of  Sunday,  June  18, 1780,  mentions  meeting  John 
Dickins  in  North  Carolina,  and  says :  "  Brother  Dick- 
ins  spoke  on  charity  very  sensibly,  but  his  voice  is 
gone ;  he  reasons  too  much ;  is  a  man  of  great  piety, 
great  skill  in  learning,  drinks  in  Greek  and  Latin 
swiftly;  yet  prays  much,  and  walks  close  with  God. 
He  is  a  gloomy  countryman  of  mine,  and  very  diffi- 
dent of  himself."  The  next  day  he  writes:  "Brother 
Dickins  drew  the  subscription  for  a  Kingswood 
School  in  America;  this  was  what  came  out  a  college 
in  the  subscription  printed  by  Dr.  Coke."1  This 
was  one  of  the  leading  preachers  in  the  Virginia 
Conference  with  whom  Asbury  and  his  3ompanions 
had  to  deal. 

Then  there  was  Reuben  Ellis,  whom  the  Confer- 
ence Minutes,  after  his  death  in  1796,  pronounced 
a  roan  of  "very  sure  and  solid  parts,  both  as  a 
counselor  and  guide;  in  his  preaching  weighty  and 
powerful ;  a  man  of  simplicity  and  godly  sincerity ; " 
and  expressed  "a  doubt  whether  there  be  one  left  in 


»  Asbury 's  Journal,  1821,  p.  291. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     163 

all  the  connection  of  higher,  if  of  equal,  standing, 
piety,  and  usefulness.2' 

Another  was  James  O'Kelly,  one  of  the  strongest 
characters  in  early  Methodism.  Lee  says :  "  The  most 
influential  preachers  in  that  separation  in  favor  of  the 
ordinances  were  Philip  Gatch,  John  Dickins,  and 
James  O'Kelly.  These  men,"  he  says,  "were  much 
respected  for  their  usefulness  in  the  ministry."1  But 
besides  these  there  were  other  men  of  note,  of  whom 
we  can  not  make  particular  mention. 

To  come  to  such  a  Conference  with  a  demand 
which  was  the  next  thing  to  an  unconditional  sur- 
render, and  expect  an  easy  task,  was  absurd,  and,  as 
we  will  see,  the  mission  was  beset  with  many  diffi- 
culties. 

Unfortunately  the  data  in  regard  to  the  proceed- 
ings of  this  Conference  session  are  scant,  excepting 
that  which  comes  from  Asbury's  side  of  the  question. 
However,  there  is  no  reason  for  doubting  the  accuracy 
of  the  statements  which  come  to  us  from  this  source ; 
but  it  would  be  interesting  to  have  the  story  from  the 
other  side  for  purposes  of  comparison. 

One  of  Asbury's  companions,  Freeborn  Garrettson, 
gives  us  in  his  Autobiography,  written  about  1790, 
a  brief  account  of  this  affair  in  the  following  language. 
"The  Methodists  being  only  a  society,  which  were 
mostly  united  (with  regard  to  communion)  to  the 
Church  of  England ;  and  her  ministers  (especially  in 
Virginia  and  Carolina)  in  the  time  of  the  war  were 


i  Jease  Lee,  History  of  Method  Ista,  p.  73. 


164    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

dispersed,  so  that  a  large  body  of  people,  under  the 
name  of  Methodists,  were  in  a  great  measure  destitute 
of  the  ordinances  of  the  Lord's  house.  In  this  case 
what  was  to  be  done?  Our  dear  Virginia  brethren 
thought  it  expedient  to  form  themselves  into  a  Church, 
and  have  the  ordinances  among  them,  which  they  did 
in  the  year  1779.  But  it  was  contrary  to  the  minds 
of  the  preachers  to  the  North. 

"In  April,  1780,  we  held  a  Conference  in  Balti- 
more, at  which  Brother  F.  A.  [Francis  Asbury], 
Brother  W.  W.  [William  Watters],  and  myself  thought 
proper  to  visit  our  brethren  at  the  South ;  and  after  a 
tedious  journey  of  several  hundred  miles,  we  arrived 
safe  in  Manakintown,  where  we  found  the  brethren  in 
Conference,  fully  persuaded  in  their  minds  that  the 
Lord  required  us  to  be  a  separate  Church.  We  for 
a  considerable  time  conferred  together,  and  much  of 
the  divine  presence  was  among  us.  On  both  sides  it 
was  painful  to  part.  This  the  great  Governor  of  the 
Church  would  not  permit,  for  when  the  help  of  man 
failed  he  interposed  his  omnipotent  arm  and  convinced 
our  brethren  that  they  ought  at  least  to  accede  to  a  sus- 
pension of  the  ordinances  for  one  year,  till  the  founder 
of  our  society,  Mr.  John  Wesley,  could  be  consulted."1 

It  thus  appears  that  Mr.  Garrettson,  and  probably 
many  others,  understood  that  the  ministers  in  the 
Virginia  Conference  had  formed  themselves  into  a 
Church,  and  that,  after  a  year's  experience  in  adminis- 
tering the  sacraments,  they  were  still  "fully  persuaded 


*  Freeboru  Gurrettson's  Autobiography,  pp.  161, 162. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.      165 

in  their  minds  that  the  Lord  required"  -them  "to  be  a 
separate  Church." 

In  this  hour  of  earnest,  solicitation  on  the  one  side, 
and  determined  resistance  on  the  other,  a  sort  of  medi- 
ator appeared  in  the  person  of  Edward  Dromgoole. 
Mr.  Dromgoole  was  born  in  Sligo,  Ireland,  about 
1751.  His  peculiar  name,  according  to  his  grandson, 
was  derived  from  Drom,  a  mountain,  and  Goole,  a 
clan,  and,  meaning  a  mountain  clan,  has  been  traced 
back  through  hundreds  of  years  of  Irish  history  to 
its  early  origin  among  the  clans  of  Finland.1  Mr. 
Dromgoole  was  a  Roman  Catholic  until,  when  ap- 
proaching manhood,  he  renounced  popery  and  became 
a  Methodist.  In  May,  1770,  he  sailed  for  America, 
and,  after  arriving  in  Baltimore  the  following  August, 
he  settled  at  Frederick,  Maryland.  Having  a  letter 
for  Robert  Strawbridge,  his  fellow-countryman,2  he 
heard  him  preach,  and  thus  came  in  contact  with  the 
man  who  had  so  much  to  do  in  bringing  on  the  sac- 
ramental controversy.  He  began  to  preach  in  1773, 
and  in  1774  he  was  sent  to  the  Baltimore  Circuit  as 
Shadford's  colleague.  His  grandson,  Edward  Drom- 
goole, Esq.,  of  Brunswick  County,  Va.,  says  that 
"as  soon  as  the  war  broke  out  he  took  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  his  adopted  country,  and  carefully  pre- 
served the  certificate  thereof  as  a  testimonial  of  his 
fidelity  to  the  American  cause."3 

'  John  Atkinson,  D.  D.,  Centennial  History  of  American  Meth- 
odism, New  York,  1884,  p.  877. 

*  J.  Lednum,  History  of   Methodism  In  America,  Philadelphia, 
1859,  p.  183. 

*  J.  Atkinson,  D.  D.,  Centennial  History  of  American  Methodism, 
P.87& 


166    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Mr.  Dromgoole's  name  appears  at  irregular  inter- 
vals in  the  Minutes,  evidently  from  the  fact  that  he 
took  appointments  irregularly  because  he  married  in 
1777,  and  in  that  primitive  time  it  was  very  difficult 
for  a  married  man  to  do  the  full  work  of  an  itinerant 
preacher,  moving  from  place  to  place  at  the  pleasure 
of  the  appointing  power.  In  consequence  of  this, 
many  of  the  early  Methodist  preachers,  when  they 
married,  either  left  the  itinerancy  or  entered  the  min- 
istry of  some  other  denomination. 

Mr.  Asbury,  under  date  of  June  8,  1780,  says: 
"Edward  Dromgoole  is  a  good  preacher,  but  en- 
tangled with  a  family.  We  spoke  of  a  plan  for  build- 
ing houses  in  every  circuit  for  preachers'  wives,  and  the 
society  to  supply  their  families  with  bread  and  meat,  so 
the  preachers  should  travel  from  place  to  place  as  when 
single;  for  unless  something  of  the  kind  be  done 
we  shall  have  no  preachers  but  young  ones  in  a  few 
years.  They  will  marry  and  stop."1  Nevertheless 
Dromgoole  remained  an  influential  preacher,  and  ap- 
pears from  time  to  time  in  the  Conferences,  and  for  a 
number  of  years  as  an  "assistant."  One  who  heard 
him  preach  in  North  Carolina  when  he  was  past  mid- 
dle age  remarks  that  "his  voice,  his  countenance, 
and  his  gestures  all  gave  a  power  to  his  eloquence, 
which  is  rarely  equaled  even  at  this  day.  The  copi- 
ous flow  of  tears  and  the  awful  peals  of  his  voice 
showed  that  the  preacher's  whole  soul  was  thrown 
into  the  subject,  and  it  produced  the  most  thrilling 
effect  that  I  had  ever  witnessed.  There  was  not  a 

*  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I.,  p.  290. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     167 

dry  eye  among  the  hundreds  who  listened  to  him  on 
that  occasion."1  Even  when  he  had  become  an  oc- 
togenarian he  retained  his  power  as  a  preacher,  and 
there  is  a  record  of  his  preaching  as  late  as  1831  at  a 
camp-meeting  in  Virginia,  and  one  who  heard  him 
on  that  occasion  says :  "  Take  him  all  in  all,  I  shall 
never  see  his  like  again." 3 

This  was  the  man  who  came  to  the  aid  of  Asbury 
and  his  fellow-commissioners  at  the  Virginia  Confer- 
ence of  1780.  It  will  be  remembered  on  May  3, 1779, 
just  after  his  Conference  at  Judge  White's,  that 
Asbury  wrote  to  Edward  Dromgoole,  urging  him, 
"  if  possible,  to  prevent  a  separation  among  the 
preachers  in  the  South."  On  Sunday,  J^ily  2,  1780, 
after  the  Conference  at  Manakintown,  he  writes: 
"Edward  Dromgoole  is  hearty  in  good  old  Meth- 
odism ;  we  have  had  great  union ;  I  hope  he  will 
check  the  spirit  of  some  of  the  divisive  men."3  This 
man,  who  had  spent  his  ministerial  life  in  the  South, 
doubtless  had  much  to  do  in  bringing  about  a  re- 
union between  the  two  Conferences.  He  took  his 
stand  with  Asbury,  and  made  their  cause  his. 

Asbury  tells  the  story.  He  says  that  on  Tuesday, 
May  9,  1780,— 

"  The  Conference  was  called.  Brothers  Walters,  Garrettson, 
and  myself  stood  back ;  and  being  afterward  joined  by  Brother 
Dromgoole,  we  were  desired  to  come  in,  and  I  was  permitted 
to  speak.  I  read  Wesley's  thoughts  against  a  separation, 
showed  my  private  letters  of  instructions  from  Mr.  Wesley, 


» Bennett's  Methodism  In  Virginia. 

•  The  Methodist  Protestant,  September  2, 1831. 

•  Aslmry 'B  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  2M. 


168    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

set  before  them  the  sentiments  of  the  Delaware  and  Balti- 
more Conferences,1  read  our  epistles,  and  read  my  letter  to 
Brother  Gatch,  and  Dickins's  letter  in  answer.  After  some 
time  spent  in  tliis  way,  it  was  proposed  to  me,  if  I  would  gel 
the  circuits  supplied,  they  would  desist;  but  that  I  could 
not  do. 

"  We  went  to  preaching;  I  spoke  on  Ruth  ii,  4,*  and  spoke 
as  though  nothing  had  been  the  matter  among  the  preachers  or 
people ;  and  we  were  greatly  pleased  and  comforted ;  there 
was  some  moving  among  the  people. 

"In  the  afternoon  we  met.  The  preachers  appeared  to  me 
to  be  farther  off.  There  had  been,  I  thought,  some  talking  out  of 
doors.  When  we — Asbury,  Garrettson, Waiters,  and  Dromgoole — 
could  not  come  to  a  conclusion  with  them,  we  withdrew,  and 
left  them  to  deliberate  on  the  conditions  I  offered,  which  was 
to  suspend  the  measures  they  bad  taken  for  one  year.  After 
an  hour's  conference,  we  were  called  to  receive  their  answer, 
which  was  that  they  could  not  submit  to  the  terms  of  union. 
I  then  prepared  to  leave  the  house  to  go  to  a  near  neighbor's  to 
lodge  under  the  heaviest  cloud  I  ever  felt  in  America.  O 
what  I  felt!  Nor  I  alone,  but  the  agents  on  both  sides  I  They 
wept  like  children,  but  kept  their  opinions." 

In  his  journal  for  the  next  day  he  says : 

"  I  returned  to  take  leave  of  Conference  and  to  go  off  im- 
mediately to  the  North ;  but  found  they  were  brought  to  an 
agreement  while  I  had  been  praying,  as  with  a  broken  heart, 

in  the  house  we  went  to  lodge  at, and  Brothers  Watters 

and  Garrettson  had  been  praying  up-stairs,  where  the  Confer- 
ence sat.  We  heard  what  they  had  to  say.  Surely  the  hand  of 
God  has  been  greatly  seen  in  all  this.  There  might  have  been 
twenty  promising  preachers  and  three  thousand  people3  seriously 
affected  by  this  separation  ;  but  the  Lord  would  not  suffer  this. 
We  then  had  preaching  by  Brother  Watters  on  '  Come  thou 
with  us,  and  we  will  do  thee  good.'  Afterward  we  had  a  love- 

>Tlie  Conferences  of  the  Northern  preachers  in  1779  and  1780. 

»"And  behold,  Bouz  came  from  Bethlehem,  aud  said  uuto  the  reap- 
ers, The  Lord  be  with  you.  And  they  answered  him,  The  Lord  bless 
thee." 

•These  estimates  are  conjectural  aud  Inaccurate. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.      169 

feast;  preachers  and  people  wept,  prayed,  and  talked,  so  that 
the  spirit  of  dissension  was  powerfully  weakened,  and  I  hoped 
it  would  never  take  place  again." l 

Now  we  see  more  distinctly  Asbury's  meaning  in 
using  the  word  separation  as  applied  to  the  Virginia 
Conference.  He  read  Mr.  Wesley's  "  Reasons  Against 
a  Separation  from  the  Church  of  England ;" 2  but  this 
was  written  in  1758,  twenty-two  years  before,  in  view 
of  conditions  then  existing  in  England,  and  about 
eight  years  prior  to  the  introduction  of  Wesleyan 
Methodism  into  America.  The  conditions  in  America, 
as  Mr.  Wesley  afterward  admitted,  were  very  different. 
Asbury  considered  that  the  ordinary  Methodist 
preacher  who  administered  the  ordinances  had  sep- 
arated, and  that  the  people  who  received  the  sacra- 
ments from  them  likewise  separated  from  the  English 
State  Church,  to  which  they  had  been  recommended 
to  go  for  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  That  was 
Asbury's  point  of  view ;  but  the  fact  remains  that 
Asbury  and  his  followers  separated  from  the  regular 
Conference  before  it  decided  to  depart  from  the  usual 
custom,  and  without  meeting  in  its  session,  and  therein 
endeavoring  to  prevent  the  action  which  they  deplored. 
When  we  consider  these  facts  and  also  the  pressing 
demand  for  the  sacraments,  we  are  surprised  that 
the  Southern  ministers  were  as  gentle  and  yielded  so 
quickly,  even  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  fraternal 
union  with  those  to  the  North.  It  speaks  well  for 
their  conciliatory  spirit,  when  it  is  remembered  that 


i  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  p.  283. 

«  Wesley's  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  1853,  pp.  293-298. 

12 


170    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

they  in  fact  yielded  almost  everything,  while  the 
Northern  men  practically  yielded  nothing.  The 
Southern  ministers  agreed  to  suspend  the  ordinances 
for  one  year;  the  Northern  preachers  had  none  to 
suspend.  They  also  agreed  to  meet  in  Baltimore  the 
next  year,  but  the  Northern  preachers  did  not  pro- 
pose to  go  South  and  meet  with  their  brethren  of 
that  section.  The  unyielding  were  in  the  North ; 
those  who  made  the  concessions  were  of  the  South. 

Before  leaving  this  momentous  matter,  we  must 
cite  the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  William  Watters,  one 
of  the  three  commissioners  from  the  North.  It  was 
he  who  went  uninvited  to  the  Conference  of  1779,  at 
Judge  White's,  to  urge  Asbury  to  be  present  at  the 
Fluvanna  Conference,  and  it  was  he  who  was  charged 
with  a  message  from  Asbury  and  his  adherents  to  the 
regular  Conference  in  Virginia.  He  was,  therefore, 
&  persona  grata l  with  both  parties,  and  gives  us  the  best 
account  of  his  mission  and  its  results.  He  says  that 
Philip  Gatch  and  Reuben  Ellis, 

"Both  thought  their  Baltimore  brethren  were  hard  with 
them,  and  there  was  little  appearance  of  anything  but  an 
entire  separation.  They  complained  that  I  was  the  only  one 
who  did  not  join  them,  that  treated  them  with  affection  and 
tenderness.  I  awfully  feared  our  visit  would  be  of  little  con- 
sequence, yet  I  willingly  went  down  in  the  name  of  God, 
hoping  against  hope.  We  found  our  brethren  as  loving  and 
as  full  of  zeal  as  ever,  and  as  determined  on  persevering  in 
their  newly  adopted  mode ;  for  to  all  their  former  arguments 
they  now  added  (what  with  many  was  infinitely  stronger  than 
all  other  arguments  in  the  world)  that  the  Lord  approbated 


»An  agreeable  or  acceptable  person,  one  in  favor. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.    171 

and  greatly  blessed  his  own  ordinances,  by  them  administered 
the  past  year.  We  had  a  great  deal  of  loving  conversation, 
with  many  tears ;  but  I  saw  no  bitterness,  no  shyness,  no 
judging  each  other.  We  wept  and  prayed  and  sobbed,  but 
neither  would  agree  to  the  other's  terms.  In  the  meantime, 
I  was  requested  to  preach  at  twelve  o'clock.  As  I  had  many 
preachers  and  professors  to  hear  me,  I  spoke  from  the  words 
of  Moses  to  his  father-in-law:  'We  are  journeying  unto  the 
place  of  which  the  Lord  said,  I  will  give  it  to  you ;  come 
thou  with  us,  and  we  will  do  thee  good ;  for  the  Lord  hath 
spoken  good  concerning  Israel.'  After  waiting  two  days,  and 
all  hopes  of  an  accommodation  failing,  we  had  fixed  on  start- 
ing back  early  in  the  morning ;  but  late  in  the  evening  it  was 
proposed  by  one  of  their  own  party  in  Conference  (none  of 
the  others  being  present)  that  there  should  be  a  suspension 
of  the  ordinances  for  the  present  year,  and  that  our  circum- 
stances should  be  laid  before  Mr.  Wesley,  and  his  advice 
solicited;  also  that  Mr.  Asbury  should  be  requested  to  ride 
through  the  different  circuits,  and  superintend  the  work  at 
large.  The  proposal  in  a  few  minutes  took  with  all  but  a  few. 
In  the  morning,  instead  of  coming  off  in  despair,  we  were  in- 
vited to  take  our  seats  again  in  the  Conference,  where,  with 
great  rejoicings  and  praises  to  God,  we,  on  both  sides,  heartily 
agreed  to  the  accommodation.  I  could  not  but  say,  It  is  of  the 
Lord's  doing,  and  it  is  marvelous  in  our  eyes.  I  knew  of 
nothing  upon  earth  that  could  have  given  me  more  real  con- 
solation; and  I  could  not  but  be  heartily  thankful  for  the 
stand  I  had  taken,  and  the  part  I  had  acted  through  the 
whole  contest.  I  had,  by  several  leading  characters  on  both 
sides,  been  suspected  of  leaning  to  the  opposite ;  could  all 
have  agreed  to  the  administration  of  the  ordinances,  I  should 
have  had  no  objection;  but  until  that  was  the  case,  I  could 
not  think  ourselves  ripe  for  so  great  a  change.  We  have  had 
every  reason  to  believe  that  everything  would  end  well ;  that 
the  evils  which  had  actually  attended  our  partial  division 
would  make  us  more  cautious  how  we  should  entertain  one 
thought  of  taking  a  step  that  might  have  the  least  tendency 
to  so  great  an  evil." l 


i  Life  of  Rev.  William  Walters,  p.  79. 


172    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Wonderful;  indeed,  is  it  that  the  strong  men  of 
this  Conference,  notwithstanding  their  conviction  that 
their  course  had  been  right,  should  give  up  the  very 
point  for  which  they  had  battled.  More  wonderful 
was  it  that  they  consented  to  go  to  a  Conference  seat 
in  the  territory  occupied  by  the  Northern  preachers ; 
and  most  wonderful  was  it  that  they  would  request 
Mr.  Asbury  "  to  superintend  the  work  at  large,"  for 
this  was  practically  accepting  and  extending  his  au- 
thority in  the  South.  Surely  it  would  be  unfair  to 
infer  that  those  who  made  so  many  concessions  for 
the  sake  of  union  were  bitter  or  troublesome  spirits. 

Freeborn  Garrettson,  who  knew  them  well,  and 
who  was  opposed  to  their  course,  says: 

*'I  do  not  think  that  Drew,  in  his  Life  of  Coke,  has,  in 
several  particulars,  done  justice  to  our  American  brethren. 
He  represents  them  as  very  refractory,  and  supposes  that 
Asbury  had  much  trouble  with  them;  whereas,  the  fact  is, 
they  went  forth  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit,  disseminating  di- 
vine truth,  and  suffering  much  persecution  and  many  priva- 
tions, while  Asbury  had  a  quiet  retreat  at  Judge  White's, 
and  that  during  the  hottest  time  of  our  conflict.1  It  is  true, 
our  Southern  brethren,  to  satisfy  the  people  and  their  own 
consciences,  did  administer  the  ordinances  in  what  they 
thought  an  extreme  case.  The  leading  members  of  the  Flu- 
vanna  Conference  were  Dickins,  Gatch,  Yeargan,  Poythress, 
Ellis,  Tatum,  etc.,  all  faithful,  pious,  zealous  men  of  God,  who 
would  have  done  credit  to  any  religious  connection.  I  ad- 
mired their  goodness  in  cordially  agreeing  to  consult  Wesley, 
and  to  follow  his  judgment,  and,  till  they  should  receive  his 
advice,  to  suspend  the  administration  of  the  ordinances.  If  I 
am  prolix  on  this  subject,  it  is  to  show  that  our  Virginia 
brethren  were  undeservedly  accused  of  schism."  ' 


iThe  War  of  the  Revolution. 

•  F.  Oarrettson'a  Semi-centennial  Sermon. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.    173 

Mr.  Garrettson  gives  a  just  statement  as  to  the 
spirit  of  the  Southern  preachers,  but  possibly  misin- 
terprets Mr.  Drew,  who  really  appears  to  side  with 
the  Southern  party  and  to  put  considerable  blame  upon 
Mr.  Asbury.  Thus  he  remarks,  that  when  a  request 
for  the  sacraments  was  made,  Asbury  "  absolutely  re- 
fused to  give  either  preachers  or  people  any  redress." 
Then  he  observes  that  the  Southern  preachers  "  went 
forth  in  the  name  of  God,  and  administered  the  sac- 
raments to  all  whom  they  judged  proper  to  receive 
them.  The  clamor  of  the  people  immediately  sub- 
sided. All  were  satisfied  with  the  enjoyment  of  their 
returning  privileges,  and  prosperity  became  the  com- 
panion of  peace.  Mr.  Asbury,  in  the  meanwhile, 
who  had  not  yet  shaken  off  the  rusty  fetters  of  '  apos- 
tolical succession/  found  himself  comparatively  de- 
serted by  those  whose  respect  for  him  still  remained 
undiminished.  Against  the  illegality  of  their  pro- 
ceedings he  bore  a  public  testimony,  denying  the 
authority  by  which  the  preachers  acted,  and  declaring 
the  ordination  to  which  they  had  given  existence  in- 
valid. With  individuals  his  arguments  had  weight, 
and  many  hesitated  to  follow  the  measures  they  had 
adopted.  In  this  manner  he  proceeded  until  he  had 
proselyted  some,  had  silenced  others,  and  had  shaken 
the  faith  of  all ;  so  that  at  a  subsequent  Conference 
he  found  means  to  procure  a  vote  which  declared  the 
former  ordination  unscriptural.  The  breach  was 
soon  healed ;  a  general  reconciliation  took  place,  and 
Mr.  Asbury  once  more  resumed  the  full  exercise  of 


174    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

that  authority  of  which  he  had,  for  a  season,  been 
partially  deprived."1 

Mr.  Drew,  on  account  of  his  intimacy  with  Dr. 
Coke,  is  good  authority  as  to  Coke  in  America  and 
elsewhere;  but,  residing,  as  he  did,  in  England,  he  is 
not  the  best  authority  as  to  events  in  America  some 
years  before  Coke  came  to  this  country.  There  is  no 
evidence,  for  example,  to  prove  that  the  Virginia 
Conference  ever  declared  bj  vote,  or  in  any  other 
way,  that  their  ordination  was  uuscriptural. 

Whatever  means  were  used,  whether  public  or 
private,  it  was  now  evident  that  Asbury  had  tri- 
umphed, and  Lee  says:  "By  his  being  often  with 
the  preachers  and  among  the  people  in  the  South  the 
divisive  spirit  died  away,  and  the  preachers  and  people 
by  degrees  became  more  reconciled  to  the  old  plan 
and  to  the  old  preachers,  and  peace  and  harmony 
were  once  more  established  throughout  the  con- 
nection."1 

It  is  a  little  singular  that  the  printed  Minutes 
of  1780  give  none  of  the  transactions  of  that,  which 
certainly  was  the  eighth  regular  Conference  at  which 
these  important  matters  were  decided.  All  that  ap- 
pears are  two  questions,  as  to  where  the  Southern 
preachers  are  stationed  and  what  numbers  there  were 
in  the  societies,  and  these  are  added  as  questions 
twenty-seven  and  twenty-eight  to  the  Minutes  of  As- 


>  Samuel  Drew,  Life  of  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D.,  Arner.  Ed.,  1847, 
pp.  60,  70. 

•  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  74. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     175 

hury's  Conference,  which  had  been  held  at  Baltimore. 
Some  might  allege  that  it  was  because  the  victorious 
party  controlled  the  press,  but  probably  it  was  be- 
cause at  the  period  when  the  Minutes  were  put  in 
print  both  sides  had  so  blended  into  one  that  all  were 
willing  to  let  the  matter  sink  into  oblivion. 

It  had  been  agreed  that  a  letter  would  be  addressed 
to  Mr.  Wesley.  Mr.  Garrettson  tells  us  that  "a  cir- 
cumstantial letter  was  written  to  that  venerable 
apostle  of  the  age," l  and  in  his  Semi-centennial  Ser- 
mon he  states  that  the  communication  was  drawn  up 
by  John  Dickins.  On  Friday,  the  12th  of  May,  1780, 
Mr.  Asbury  notes  that  he  takes  a  "rest  this  day  to 
write  to  Mr.  Wesley." 2  Doubtless  in  this  letter  he  re- 
counted the  occurrences  to  which  we  have  referred, 
and  requested  his  advice  and  aid;  but  on  Saturday, 
the  16th  of  September,  he  specifically  mentions  writ- 
ing on  that  subject.  He  says:  "Wrote  to  Mr.  Wes- 
ley at  the  desire  of  the  Virginia  Conference,  who  had 
consented  to  suspend  the  administration  of  the  ordi- 
nances for  one  year."8  At  the  same  time  he  was  ex- 
erting his  influence  upon  the  preachers  to  consummate 
the  reunion.  On  the  24th  of  October,  1780,  he  says: 
"I  wrote  to  the  preachers  jointly  and  severally  about 
a  union."4  November*  the  llth  he  makes  this  curious 
entry:  "William  Glendenning  has  handed  me  a  book 
written  by  Jeremiah  Burroughs,  in  the  time  of  the 
Commonwealth,  upon  heart-divisions  and  the  evil  of 


>  F.  GarrettBon's  Autobiography,  p.  182. 

•  Aibury'a  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p. 284.       •Id.,  p.  209.       *ld.,p.3li. 


176    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

the  times.  In  this  work  I  promise  myself  good  argu- 
ments against  our  separating  brethren."1  So  he  was 
preparing  for  further  conflict. 

The  heading  of  the  printed  Minutes  for  1781 
states  the  Conference  was  "  held  at  Choptank,  State 
of  Delaware,  April  16,  1781,  and  adjourned  to  Balti- 
more the  24th  of  said  month." 

Lee  says :  "  On  the  24th  day  of  April  the  ninth 
Conference  met  in  Baltimore.  But  previous  to  this  a 
few  preachers  on  the  Eastern  Shore  held  a  little  Con- 
ference in  Delaware  State,  near  Choptank,  to  make 
some  arrangements  for  those  preachers  who  could  not 
go  with  them,  and  then  adjourned  (as  they  called  it) 
to  Baltimore ;  so,  upon  the  whole,  it  was  considered 
but  one  Conference."2  Asbury  mentions  the  "little 
Conference"  under  date  of  April  13th,  though  the  entry 
evidently  covers  two  or  more  days.  He  says :  "  After 
meeting  we  rode  about  twenty  miles  to  Brother 
White's,  where  about  twenty  preachers  met  together 
to  hold  a  Conference."3  But  he  does  not  say  what 
particular  business  called  them  together  or  what  they 
did  at  this  gathering.  At  the  Baltimore  session,  how- 
ever, there  seemed  a  necessity  for  presenting  some 
explanation,  and  the  printed  Minutes  show  the  follow- 
ing questions  and  answers: 

"  Ques.  2.  Why  was  Conference  begun  at  Choptank  ? 

"  Ans.  To  examine  those  who  could  not  go  to  Baltimore, 
and  to  provide  supplies  for  the  circuits  where  the  Lord  ia 
more  immediately  pouring  out  his  Spirit. 


i  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  818. 

» Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  75. 

»  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  828. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.      177 

"  Quft.  3.  Is  there  any  precedent  for  this  in  the  economy 
of  Methodism? 

"  Ant.  Yes.  Mr.  Wesley  generally  holds  a  Conference  in 
Ireland  for  the  same  purposes." 

The  names  in  the  printed  Minutes  would  lead  us 
to  infer  that  the  most  of  those  who  met  near  Chop- 
tank  also  attended  at  Baltimore,  and  it  is  not  improb- 
able that  Asbury  availed  himself  of  the  occasion  to 
make  it  a  sort  of  a  "  preparatory  Conference,"  some- 
what like  the  meeting  held  in  Delaware  in  1779,  and 
possibly  plans  were  mapped  out  for  the  work  at  Balti- 
more. To  say  that  it  adjourned  to  meet  in  Baltimore 
is  rather  awkward.  This  was  not  a  regular  Confer- 
ence, and  the  Conference  at  Baltimore  was  not  an 
adjourned  meeting  of  the  Conference  held  at  Chop- 
tank,  but  was  the  regularly  appointed  Conference 
for  the  year,  in  which  the  Northern  and  Southern 
preachers  were  to  meet  together,  as  one  called  it,  in 
"General  Conference;"  that  is  to  say,  the  preachers 
generally  were  to  meet  together  in  one  Conference, 
and  not,  as  they  had  been  doing  for  two  years,  in  two 
distinct  Conferences. 

The  Conference  held  in  Baltimore  on  the  24th  of 
April,  1781,  was  the  ninth  regular  Conference.  All 
that  Asbury  gives  in  his  journal  about  the  session  is' 
the  following :  "  Our  Conference  began  in  Baltimore, 
where  several  of  the  preachers  attended  from  Vir- 
ginia and  North  Carolina.  All  but  one  agreed  to  re- 
turn to  the  old  plan,  and  give  up  the  administration 
of  the  ordinances.  Our  troubles  now  seem  over  from 
that  quarter,  and  there  appears  to  be  a  considerable 


178    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

change  in  the  preachers  from  North  to  South.  All 
was  conducted  in  peace  and  love."1 

Jesse  Lee,  who  became  a  traveling  preacher  the 
next  year,  remarks  that  "at  this  Conference  most 
part,  if  not  all,  the  traveling  preachers  who  were 
present,  resolved,  and  to  give  the  greater  sanction, 
they  subscribed  their  names  to  the  resolution,  to  dis- 
countenance a  separation  among  either  preachers  or 
people.  They  also  agreed  that  they  would  preach 
the  old  Methodist  doctrine  and  enforce  the  discipline 
which  was  contained  in  the  Notes,3  Sermons,  and 
Minutes  published  by  Mr.  Wesley."* 

This  appears  to  have  been  about  the  first  thing 
presented  and  settled ;  for  the  first  item  in  the  printed 
Minutes  is : 

"  Ques.  1.  What  preachers  are  now  determined, 
after  mature  consideration,  close  observation,  and 
earnest  prayer,  to  preach  the  old  Methodist  doctrine, 
and  strictly  enforce  the  discipline  as  contained  in  the 
Notes,  Sermons,  and  Minutes  published  by  Mr. 
Wesley  so  far  as  they  respect  both  preachers  and  peo- 
ple, according  to  the  knowledge  we  have  of  them, 
and  the  ability  God  shall  give,  and  firmly  resolved 
to  discountenance  a  separation  among  either  preachers 
or  people  ?"  and  the  answer  is  in  the  form  of  thirty- 
nine  names,  evidently  those  of  the  preachers  present 
who  signed  the  agreement.  Among  these  we  find 
the  names  of  Reuben  Ellis  and  Lee  Roy  Cole,4  who 

»Asbury 's  Journal,  1821,  Vol  I,  p.  828. 

•  Wesley's  Notes  on  the  New  Testament. 

•  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  76. 
'OrLeroy  Cole. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.       179 

were  in  the  governing  committee  and  presbytery 
created  by  the  Virginia  Conference  of  1779.  We 
find  also  the  names  of  Francis  Poythress,  Nelson 
Reed,  and  Henry  Willis,  who,  in  that  Conference, 
advocated  the  right  of  the  Methodist  preachers  to 
administer  the  sacraments;1  but  we  miss  those  of 
other  prominent  Southern  members. 

Under  question  19,  "  Who  desist  from  traveling 
this  year?"  we  find  the  names  of  John  Dickins, 
Isham  Tatum,  William  Moore,  Greenberry  Green, 
and  Daniel  Ruff,  all  of  whom,  excepting  the  last 
named,  were  identified  with  the  Southern  section. 
The  name  of  James  O'  Kelly  does  not  appear  among 
the  signers  or  among  those  taking  appointments,  but 
it  reappears  in  the  following  year.  The  probabil- 
ity is  that  a  number  of  the  Southern  men  considered 
the  question  settled  and  remained  on  their  circuits; 
but  no  other  Conference  was  held  this  year.  John 
Dickins  probably  retired  for  the  time  being  on  ac- 
count of  ill-health  ;  for,  as  already  noted,  his  voice 
was  failing. 

There  was  now  only  one  Conference,  and  Ameri- 
can Methodism  was  once  more  united.  If  the  union 
had  not  taken  place,  there  might  have  grown  up  from 
that  day  in  the  United  States  two  Methodisms,  not 
only  with  differences  in  polity,  but  also  with  sec- 
tional distinctions.  Yet  the  union  was  brought  about 
by  sacrificing  the  principle  of  self-government,  as 
asserted  by  the  Virginia  Conference,  and  putting 

>  Philip  Gatob'a  MS.  Journal ;  Leroy  M.   Lee,  D.  D.,  Life  of  Jesse 
Lee,  1860,  p.  70. 


180    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

themselves  under  the  government  of  one  man-- 
Asbury.  In  other  words,  it  was  a  reversion  to  per- 
sonal government.  The  compensation  was  in  the 
unity  it  gave  as  a  basis  for  another  departure  which 
would  speedily  come. 

The  Conference  took  action  in  regard  to  a  number 
of  practical  matters,  as  the  following  questions  and 
answers  will  show: 

"  Ques.  4.  Should  we  take  the  preachers  into  full  connec- 
tion after  one  year's  trial  ?  Or,  would  it  not  be  better,  after 
considering  how  young  they  are  in  age,  grace,  and  gifts,  to  try 
them  two  years;  unless  it  be  one  of  double  testimony,  of 
whom  there  is  a  general  approbation  ? 

"Ans.  Yes. 

"  Ques.  5.  Shall  any  assistant  take  a  local  preacher  to  travel 
in  the  circuit,  in  the  vacancy  of  Conference,  without  consult- 
ing Brother  Asbury,  or  the  assistants  near  him,  by  word  or 
letter? 

"Ana.  No. 

"  Ques.  6.  If  any  former  assistant  has  had  just  cause  for 
removing  preaching  from  any  house,  should  his  successor  re- 
turn to  it,  without  consulting  Brother  Asbury  or  the  assistants 
in  the  circuits  near  him ;  and,  if  it  remains  doubtful,  leave  it 
till  next  Conference? 

"An*.  Agreed. 

"  Ques.  7.  Ought  not  the  preachers  to  examine  every  per- 
son admitted  upon  trial  for  three  months — first,  whether  they 
have  been  turned  out;  and  if  so,  let  them  not  be  received, 
without  they  have  evidenced  repentance  and  can  be  generally 
recommended  ? 

"Am.  Yes. 

"  Ques.  8.  Ought  not  the  preachers  often  to  read  the 
'  Rules  of  the  Societies,'  the  '  Character  of  a  Methodist,'  and 
the  '  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection,'  if  they  have  got 
them? 

"  Am.  Yes. 

"  Ques.  14.  Ought    not  every  assistant  to  give  a  circum- 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     181 

stantial  account  of  the  circuit  in  writing,  both  of  societies 
and  local  preachers,  with  a  plan,  to  his  successor? 

"Ans.  Yes. 

"  Ques.  15.  Ought  not  each  assistant  to  inform  all  o.ur  so- 
cieties in  his  circuit  of  the  sum  that  is  to  be  made  up  for  the 
preachers'  quarterage,  exclusive  of  traveling  expenses,  and 
urge  them  to  give  according  to  their  several  abilities? 

"An*.  Yes. 

"  Ques.  17.  What  proper  method  should  be  taken,  sup- 
posing any  difference  should  arise  in  dealing  between  our 
orethren  ? 

"  Ans.  Let  the  assistant  preacher  at  quarterly  meeting 
consult  with  the  stewards  jn  appointing  proper  persons  to  ex- 
amine into  the  circumstances;  and  if  there  be  any  suspicion 
of  injustice  or  inability  in  the  referees,  to  appoint  men  of 
more  skill  and  probity,  and  the  parties  to  abide  by  their  de- 
cision, or  be  excluded  from  the  society."1 

The  printed  Minutes  make  no  mention  of  the 
reception  of  any  letter  from  Mr.  Wesley  in  response 
to  that  which  had  been  sent  him  the  previous  year, 
in  regard  to  their  sacramental  deprivations  and  diffi- 
culties; but  the  Rev.  Freeborn  Garrettson  is  author- 
ity for  the  assertion  that  his  reply  had  been  received 
and  was  made  known  this  year.  Speaking  of  his 
mission  to  the  Virginia  Conference,  he  says:  "The 
proposition  that  we  made  to  them  was,  that  they 
should  suspend  the  administration  of  the  ordinances 
for  one  year;  in  the  meanwhile  we  would  consult 
Mr.  Wesley,  and  in  the  following  May  we  would 
have  a  Union  Conference  in  Baltimore  and  abide  by 
his  judgment.  To  this  proposal  they  unanimously 
agreed;  and  a  letter,  containing  a  circumstantial  ac- 
count of  the  case,  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Dickins,  was 

>  Printed  Minutes,  1773-1813,  pp.  28-32. 


182   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

sent  to  Mr.  Wesley.  In  May,  1781,  we  met,  and  re- 
ceived Mr.  Wesley's  answer,  which  was  that  we 
should  continue  on  the  old  plan  until  further  direc- 
tion. We  unanimously  agreed  to  follow  his  counsel, 
and  went  on  harmoniously." l 

Mr.  Garrettson's  memory  was  probably  a  little  at 
fault  as  to  the  time  of  the  meeting  of  the  Conference 
in  Baltimore.  The  fact  is  that  it  met  in  the  latter 
part  of  April ;  but  as  the  regular  sessions  of  Confer- 
ences in  Baltimore  were  invariably  held  in  the  month 
of  May  in  the  early  years,  the  mistake  is  easily  ex- 
plained. It  must  seem  singular  that  Mr.  Garrettson 
is  the  only  one  of  the  men  of  that  time  who  men- 
tions the  reception  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Wesley  in 
1781 ;  and  yet,  if  the  war  did  not  interfere,  nothing 
is  more  probable  than  that  such  a  reply  came  from 
the  founder  of  Methodism.  The  agreement  had  been 
to  "suspend  the  ordinances"  for  one  year,  and  to 
submit  the  case  to  Mr.  Wesley,  which  implied  the  ex- 
pectation that  a  letter  would  be  sent  and  a  reply  could 
be  received  within  a  year.  That  the  sacraments  were 
generally  suspended  for  several  years,  leads  to  the  infer- 
ence either  that  a  letter  so  advising  had  been  received 
from  Wesley,  or  that  the  Southern  preachers  for 
other  reasons  had  abandoned  the  position  which,  be- 
cause of  the  neglected  condition  of  the  people,  they 
had  conscientiously  taken.  It  seems  more  probable 
that  word  had  come  from  Wesley. 

The  work  in  the  South  had  been  greatly  inter- 
fered with  by  the  moving  armies  and  the  animosities 

iQarreUson's  Semi-centennial  Sermon. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCES,  1778  TO  1781.     18£ 

existing  between  the  patriots  and  the  Tories,  and  yet 
the  reports  at  this  Conference  showed  a  gain  of  22 
preachers  and  2,035  members;1  but  the  War  of  Inde- 
pendence was  drawing  to  a  close.  The  capitulation 
of  General  Cornwallis  to  Washington  at  Yorktown, 
on  the  19th  of  October,  1781,  was  the  beginning 
of  the  end ;  and  the  British  House  of  Commons,  on 
the  4th  of  March,  1782,  resolved  that  those  who 
would  advise  the  king  to  continue  the  war  on  the 
continent  of  North  America  should  be  declared  ene- 
mies of  the  sovereign  and  of  the  country.  The  strug- 
gle was  now  about  over,  though  the  hostile  armies  re- 
mained in  the  field. 

The  Conference  of  1781  closed  another  period  in 
the  history  of  the  American  Conferences.  The  varia- 
tion from  Wesley's  instructions  and  the  departure 
from  the  original  agreement  had  been  abandoned  by 
the  Southern  section.  Now  there  was  really  only  one 
Conference;  and  Asbury,  who  had  once  been  ap- 
pointed by  Mr.  Wesley,  is  now  recognized  through- 
out the  land  as  Wesley's  general  assistant  for 
America;  so  that  once  more  the  American  preachers 
united  in  one  Conference  are  in  submission  to  Mr. 
Wesley,  or  to  that  which  they  understand  to  be  his 
views. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  CONFERENCE  IN  AMERICA  FROM  1782  TO  1784. 

WITH  a  united  Conference,  and  with  a  unit  ol 
government  in  Mr.  Asbury,  American  Method- 
ism entered  upon  a  new  but  brief  period  in  its  early 
career. 

Everything  seemed  serene  upon  the  surface,  but 
Mr.  Asbury's  journal  gives  us  glimpses  of  lingering 
dissatisfaction  and  difficulty. 

In  the  month  of  October,  1781,  Asbury  was  in 
Pennsylvania.  On  the  12th  he  came  to  Philadelphia, 
where  he  remained  about  a  week.  During  this  visit 
he  notes  that  "  the  society  here  appears  to  be  in  a 
better  state  than  they  have  been  in  since  the  British 
army  was  here.  .  .  .  There  is  a  deepening  of  the 
work  in  some  souls,  but  I  fear  the  religion  of  others 
evaporates  in  talk.  .  .  .  Among  too  many  of  the 
citizens  the  spirit  of  politics  has,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
eaten  out  the  spirit  of  religion."1 

At  this  time  he  states  :  "  We  have  come  to  a  con- 
elusion  to  print  the  four  volumes  of  l  Mr.  Wesley's 
Sermons,'"  which  were  recognized  as  a  depository 
of  Wesleyan  doctrine.  A  few  days  later,  he  writes : 
"My  intervals  of  time  are  employed  in  marking 
'Baxter's  Cure  for  Church  Divisions'  for  abridg- 

»  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  pp.  385,  338. 
184 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.     185 

ment,  which  may  some  day  see  the  light."  Possibly 
he  wished  he  had  it  then  for  distribution,  for  he  adds: 
"My  soul  is  drawn  out  to  God  to  know  whether  I 
ought  to  go  to  Virginia  this  winter,  in  order,  if  pos- 
sible, to  prevent  the  spreading  of  the  fire  of  di- 
vision."1 

On  the  3d  of  the  following  month  Asbury  at- 
tended a  quarterly  meeting  in  Delaware,  and  he  ob- 
serves: "We  scrutinized  and  dealt  with  fidelity  one 
with  another.  Nothing  would  satisfy  the  preachers 
but  my  consenting  to  go  to  Virginia,"*  and  there 
must  have  been  some  reason  for  their  anxiety,  and 
that  reason  was  the  reported  discontent  in  the 
South. 

On  the  6th  of  December  he  reached  Baltimore. 
He  says:  "Here  I  received  letters  from  Virginia,  by 
which  I  learn  that  affairs  are  not  so  bad  in  Virginia 
as  I  feared.  A  few  of  the  local  preachers  have  made 
some  stir,  and  the  traveling  preachers  have  with- 
drawn from  them  and  their  adherents.  I  have  spent 
some  time  in  Baltimore  with  satisfaction,  and  could 
freely  stay  longer;  but  there  may  be  danger  in  these 
trading  towns,  and  my  way  South  seems  to  be  open."1 
On  the  19th  of  December  he  was  in  Leesburg, 
Virginia.  He  writes :  "  From  thence  I  traveled  and 
preached  through  Hanover  and  Gloucester  Circuits. 
I  find  the  spirit  of  party  among  some  of  the  people. 
The  local  preachers  tell  them  of  the  ordinances,  and 
they  catch  at  them  like  fish  at  a  bait ;  but  when  they 
are  informed  that  they  will  have  to  give  up  the 

>  Anbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  336.       >  Ibid.       «  /d.,  p  837. 
13 


186  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

traveling  preachers,  I  apprehend  they  will  not  be  so 
fond  of  their  new  plan;  and,  if  I  judge  right,  the  last 
struggle  of  a  yielding  party  will  be  made  at  the 
approaching  Conference,  to  be  held  at  the  Manakin- 
town."1  The  Conference  at  Manakintown,  to  which 
he  alludes,  was  evidently  a  Quarterly  Conference. 

In  the  month  of  January,  1782,  he  mentions  that 
"  there  is  considerable  distress  amongst  our  societies, 
caused  by  some  of  the  local  preachers,  who  are  not 
satisfied  unless  they  administer  the  ordinances  with- 
out order  or  ordination ;  and  the  whole  circuit  ap- 
pears to  be  more  or  less  tinctured  with  their  spirit." 
Again  he  says:  "I  find  the  party  men  among  our  so- 
cieties grow  weak,  and  I  am  persuaded  this  division 
will  cause  the  sincere  among  preachers  and  people  to 
cleave  closer  to  doctrine  and  discipline,  and  may  be 
the  means  of  purging  our  societies  of  those  who  are 
corrupt  in  their  principles."1 

All  this  shows  that,  notwithstanding  the  action  of 
the  Conference,  there  was  still  considerable  dissatis-  - 
faction  among  the  people  in  the  South  because  they 
were  without  the  sacraments.  It  is  probable,  also, 
that  prominent  preachers  sympathized  with  this 
feeling. 

In  the  month  of  March,  1782,  Asbury  traveled 
through  North  Carolina.  While  here  he  met  Philip 
Bruce,  who  had  charge  of  the  New  Hope  Circuit; 
and  he  also  met  James  O' Kelly,  who  at  this  time 
appears  to  have  been  without  a  regular  appoint- 
ment. It  is  probable  that  Mr.  O'  Kelly  was  not  quite 

i  Anbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  337.       « Id.,  p.  338. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.      187 

satisfied  with  the  concession  that  had  been  made  by 
the  Virginia  Conference,  and  that  Mr.  Bruce  was  not 
quite  sure  the  right  thing  had  been  done;  for  Asbury, 
on  the  18th  of  March,  writes:  "I  obtained  the  prom- 
ise of  Brothers  P.  Bruce  and  O'Kelly  to  join  heart- 
ily in  our  connection;"1  and  so  it  is  likely  that  As- 
bury  brought  his  influence  to  bear  upon  other  persons 
who  were  somewhat  disaffected.  Then  he  journeyed 
northward  for  the  Conference  which  was  to  be  held 
in  Virginia.  On  the  13th  of  April  he  held  a  quar- 
terly meeting  at  White  Oak  Chapel,  where  he  preached 
on:  "The  children  thou  shalt  have  after  thou  hast 
lost  the  other,  shall  say  again  in  thine  ears,  The 
place  is  too  strait  for  me;  give  place  to  me  that  I 
may  dwell.  Then  shalt  thou  say  in  thine  heart, 
Who  hath  begotten  me  these,  seeing  I  have  lost  my 
children  and  am  desolate?"  etc.2  In  this  we  may 
perceive  some  reference  to  probable  losses  in  the 
past,  and  an  encouragement  to  hope  for  gains  in  the 
future.  Thus  Asbury  has  frequent  direct  or  indirect 
allusions  to  the  difficulties  which  had  existed  in 
American  Methodism,  and  possibly  then  existed  over 
the  sacramental  question. 

On  Sunday,  April  14th,  he  makes  this  entry:  "I 
preached  at  the  chapel,  and  then  went  to  Church.  I 
read  the  lessons  for  Mr.  Jarratt,  who  preached  a  great 
sermon  on  *  Union  and  Love,'  from  the  123d  Psalm. 
We  received  the  sacrament,  and  afterward  went  home 
with  Mr.  Jarratt,  that  we  might  accompany  him  to 

i  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  343. 

i  Isaiah  xlix,  20,  prob.  to  23 ;  Asbury '•  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  844. 


188    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

our  Conference."1  The  gentleman  to  whom  As- 
bury  refers  had  been  a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  was  one  of  a  very  small  number 
left  in  the  country  after  the  War  of  Independ- 
ence began;  and  it  will  be  seen  that  Mr.  Asbury 
illustrated  his  teachings,  for  he  preached  in  the 
Methodist  Chapel  and  then  went  to  "  Church "  for 
the  sacraments  from  an  Episcopally  ordained  clergy- 
man. It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  Methodist 
preacher  read  the  lessons  for  the  Episcopal  clergyman. 

The  Rev.  Devereux  Jarratt,  to  whom  allusion  has 
just  been  made,  was  born  in  New  Kent  County,  Vir- 
ginia, in  1732  or  1733.  Determining  to  enter  the 
ministry,  he  went  to  England  for  that  purpose  in 
1762.  On  his  return  he  became  rector  of  the  parish 
at  Bath.  He  was  an  evangelical  clergyman,  and  be- 
cause of  his  friendliness  towards  the  early  Method- 
ists, and  especially  because  of  his  relation  to  ques- 
tions in  dispute,  deserves  special  mention. 

In  1773  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Wesley,  thanking  him  for 
sending  preachers  to  America,  two  of  whom — Pilmoor 
and  Boardman — were  then  laboring  in  Virginia,  but 
asks:  "What  can  two  or  three  preachers  do  in  such 
an  extended  country  as  this?  Can  not  you  do  some- 
thing more  for  us?  Can  not  you  send  us  a  minister 
of  the  Church  of  England,  to  be  stationed  in  the 
vacant  parish?  I  wish  you  could  see  how  matters 
are  among  us.  This  would  serve  instead  of  a  thou- 
sand arguments  to  induce  you  to  exert  yourself  in 
this  affair."  At  that  period  he  says  there  were 

» Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  844. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.      189 

ninety-five  parishes  in  the  Colony,  and  all,  excepting 
one,  were  supplied  with  clergymen;  but  that  ninety- 
three  out  of  the  ninety-four  ministers  appeared  to  be 
without  "the  power  and  spirit  of  vital  religion."1 

In  a  narrative  which  he  wrote  for  Mr.  Wesley, 
Mr.  Jarratt  says:  "August  29,  1763,  I  was  chosen 
rector  of  B.  in  the  county  of  D.  in  Virginia.  Igno- 
rance of  the  things  of  God,  profaneness,  and  irre- 
ligion  then  prevailed  among  all  ranks  and  degrees; 
so  that  I  doubt  if  even  the  form  of  godliness  was  to 
be  found  in  any  one  family  of  this  large  and  popu- 
lous parish.  I  was  a  stranger  to  the  people;  my 
doctrines  were  quite  new  to  them,  and  were  neither 
preached  nor  believed  by  any  other  clergyman,  so  far 
as  I  could  learn,  throughout  the  province."2 

This  picture  of  ministers  and  people  is  from  an 
impartial  hand,  and  gives  us  a  fair  conception  of 
clergy  and  laity  in  Virginia  shortly  before  the  Revo- 
lutionary War;  and  it  is  not  a  matter  to  be  won- 
dered at  that  pious  people  objected  to  taking  the  sac- 
raments from  clergymen  of  such  a  character. 

Mr.  Jarratt  tells  in  this  narrative  that,  in  1765,  a 
few  were  religiously  impressed,  and  that  then  he 
"  began  to  preach  abroad,  as  well  as  in  private  houses, 
and  to  meet  little  companies  in  the  evenings,  and 
converse  freely  on  divine  things."  Further,  he  says: 

"  In  the  years  1770  and  1771  we  had  a  more  considerable 
outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  at  a  place  in  my  parish  called  White 
Oak.  It  was  here  first  I  formed  the  people  into  a  society,  that 


»  Methodist  Magazine,  1786,  p.  687. 
•  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  p.  158. 


190   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

they  might  assist  and  strengthen  each  other.  .  .  .  lu  the 
year  1772  the  revival  was  more  considerable,  and  extended  it- 
self in  some  places  for  fifty  or  sixty  miles  round.  It  increased 
still  more  in  the  following  year,  and  several  sinners  were 
truly  converted  to  God.  In  spring,  1774,  it  was  more  re- 
markable than  ever.  ...  I  formed  several  societies  out 
of  those  which  were  convinced  or  converted.  ...  In  the 
counties  of  Sussex  and  Brunswick,  the  work  for  the  year  1773 
was  chiefly  carried  on  by  the  labors  of  the  people  called 
Methodists.  The  first  of  them  who  appeared  in  these  parts 
was  Mr.  R.  W.  [Robert  Williams],  who,  you  know,  was  a  plain, 
artless,  indefatigable  preacher  of  the  gospel.  .  .  .  The 
next  year  others  of  his  brethren  came,  who  gathered  many 
societies,  both  in  this  neighborhood  and  in  other  places,  as  far 
as  North  Carolina.  They  now  began  to  ride  the  circuit,  and 
to  take  care  of  the  societies  already  formed,  which  was  ren- 
dered a  happy  means  both  of  deepening  and  spreading  the 
work  of  God."1 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Jarratt  was  the  one  clergyman  who 
showed  such  a  friendly  interest  in  the  early  American 
Methodists.  If  there  had  been  many  more  like  him, 
it  is  not  probable  that  the  Virginia  Conference  would 
have  asserted  its  right,  in  1779,  to  ordain  its  preachers, 
and  give  the  Methodist  people  the  sacraments  at  the 
hands  of  their  own  pastors,  under  whose  ministry 
they  had  been  converted;  and  yet,  even  if  there  had 
been  many  such  clergymen,  there  is  little  doubt  that 
at  a  later  period  the  Methodists  would  have  de- 
manded their  own  sacraments,  just  as  English 
preachers  urged  their  right  and  finally  secured  it, 
though  in  a  land  where  State  clergymen  were  abun- 
dant. At  this  time,  however,  owing  to  the  flight  of 


'Printed  in  Asbury's  Journal,  1821, pp.  158, 159 ;  Methodist  Quarterly 
Review,  1855,  pp.  502, 503. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.      191 

nearly  all  the  English  clergy  on  account  of  the  Revo- 
lution, the  Virginia  preachers  believed  the  demand 
for  present  action  was  imperative. 

The  heading  of  the  printed  Minutes  for  1782 
states  that  the  Conference  was  "held  at  Ellis's 
Preaching-house,  in  Sussex  County,  Virginia,  April 
17,  1782,  and  adjourned  to  Baltimore,  May  21st." 
This  was  the  tenth  regular  Annual  Conference,  and 
from  this  time  there  were  never  less  than  two  ses- 
sions held  each  year.  For  the  purpose  of  making 
regulations  or  expressing  opinions  for  the  whole  body 
of  American  Methodists,  both  bodies  were  one;  or 
rather,  the  one  body  met  in  two  sections  as  a  matter 
of  convenience. 

Lee  observes  that  "the  work  had  so  increased  and 
spread  that  it  was  now  found  necessary  to  have  a  Con- 
ference in  the  South  every  year,  continuing  the  Con- 
ference in  the  North  as  usual.  Yet,  as  the  Conference 
in  the  North  was  of  the  longest  standing,  and 
withal  composed  of  the  oldest  preachers,  it  was  al- 
lowed greater  privileges  than  that  in  the  South,  es- 
pecially in  making  rules  and  forming  regulations  for 
the  societies.  Accordingly,  when  anything  was 
agreed  to  in  the  Virginia  Conference,  and  afterwards 
disapproved  of  in  the  Baltimore  Conferepce,  it  was 
dropped.  But  if  any  rule  was  fixed  and  determined 
on  at  the  Baltimore  Conference,  the  preachers  in  the 
South  were  under  the  necessity  of  abiding  by  it. 
The  Southern  Conference  was  considered  at  that  time 
as  a  convenience,  and  designed  to  accommodate  the 
preachers  in  that  part  of  the  work,  and  to  do  all  the 


192    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

business  of  a  regular  Conference,  except  that  of  mak- 
ing or  altering  particular  rules."1 

Dr.  Leroy  M.  Lee  says :  "  This  division  of  a  still 
united  body — for  there  was  really  but  one  Conference 
after  all — seems  to  have  been  designed  more  for  the 
convenience  of  the  preachers  in  the  Southern  and  more 
distant  portions  of  the  work  than  for  any  other  ob- 
ject. A  preacher  in  one  division  possessed  the  right 
to  sit  and  vote  in  the  other.  And  as  the  rules  and 
regulations  then  forming  the  subjects  of  legislation 
were  of  a  prudential  and  temporary  nature,  there  was 
not,  that  we  are  aware  of,  any  ground  of  complaint 
or  any  cause  of  dissatisfaction  at  the  possession  or 
exercise  of  the  veto  power  in  the  Northern  branch  of 
the  body."  2  The  same  author  suggests  that  "  it  was, 
perhaps,  owing  to  this  arrangement,  that  the  Confer- 
ence in  the  South  was  held  first,  and  closed  its  pro- 
ceedings by  adjourning  to  meet  at  the  time  and  place 
to  be  held  in  the  North." 

Asbury's  Baltimore  Conference,  originally  repre- 
senting a  protesting  body  and  a  section,  had  become 
the  chief  Conference,  and  the  Virginia  Conference, 
which  in  1779  represented  a  majority  of  the  preach- 
ers and  the  people,  had  sunk  to  a  secondary  and 
subordinate  place.  The  regular  Conference,  which 
met  in  Virginia  in  1779  and  1780,  had  indeed 
merged  itself  into  the  Baltimore  Conference,  and  the 
new  Virginia  Conference  had  become  a  sort  of  "pre- 
paratory Conference,"  and  hereafter,  for  a  number  of 

i  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  pp.  78,  79. 

<  Leroy  M.  Lee.  Life  of  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  Nashville,  1860,  p.  101. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.     193 

years,  will  we  read  of  the  Conference  at  "  Ellis's  and 
>t  Baltimore." 

We  do  not  know  precisely  what  was  done  at  the 
Conference  held  at  the  former  place  on  the  17th 
of  April,  but  Asbury  has  recorded  some  of  the  par- 
ticulars. Pie  says: 

"Tuesday  (16th)  we  set  out,  and  on  the  next  day  (17th) 
reached  Ellis's,  at  whose  house  we  held  the  Conference.  The 
people  flocked  together  for  preaching.  Mr.  Jarratt  gave  us  a 
profitahle  discourse  on  the  14th  chapter  of  Hosea. l 

"In  the  evening  the  preachers  met  in  Conference.  As 
there  had  been  much  distress  felt  by  those  of  them  of 
Virginia  relative  to  the  administration  of  the  ordinances,  I 
proposed  to  such  as  were  so  disposed,  to  enter  into  a  written 
agreement  to  cleave  to  the  old  plan,  in  which  we  ha<!  been  so 
greatly  blessed,  that  we  might  have  the  greater  confidence  in 
each  other,  and  know  on  whom  to  depend.  This  instrument 
was  signed  by  the  greater  part  of  the  preachers  without  hesi- 
tation. Next  morning  I  preached  on  Phil,  ii,  1,  2,  3,  4,  5.  I 
had  liberty,  and  it  pleased  God  to  set  it  home.  One  of  the 
preachers,  James  Haw,  who  had  his  difficulties,  was  delivered 
from  them  all,  and,  wiih  the  exception  of  one,  all  the  signa- 
tures of  the  preachers  present  were  obtained.  We  received 
seven  into  connection,  and  four  remained  on  trial.  At  noon, 
Mr.  Jarratt  spoke  on  the  union  of  the  attributes.  Friday,  19th, 
we  amicably  settled  our  business  and  closed  our  Conference. 
Mr.  Jarratt  preached  on  '  A  man  shall  be  as  a  hiding-place 
from  the  wind,  and  a  covert  from  the  tempest,'  etc.  We  had 
a  love-feast — the  power  of  God  was  manifested  in  a  most  ex- 
traordinary manner — preachers  and  people  wept,  believed, 
loved,  and  obeyed."1 


>"I  will  be  as  the  dew  unto  Isrnel :  he  shall  grow  as  the  Illy,  and  cast 
forth  ins  roots  as  Lebanon.  His  brandies  shall  spread,  and  his  beauty 
shall  be  as  the  olive  tree,  and  his  smell  as  Lebuuon.  They  that  dwell 
under  his  shadow  shall  return  ;  they  shall  revive  as  the  corn,  and  grow 
as  (he  vine  ;  the  scent  thereof  shall  be  ns  the  wine  of  Lebanon." 

•Asbury's  Journal,  New  York,  1821,  pp.  314,  315. 


194   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

A  peculiar  emphasis  seems  to  be  placed  on  the  last 
word,  "obeyed."  Loyalty  to  authority  was  part  of  the 
training  of  a  Methodist  minister.  It  is  evident  that 
there  was  a  restlessness  on  the  part  of  the  preachers 
and  people,  which  gave  Asbury  great  anxiety.  There 
was  ground  for  this  restiveness,  for  the  Virginia 
Conference  of  1780  had  made  a  great  concession  in 
suspending  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  for 
one  year.  Now  two  years  had  passed,  and  yet  no  re- 
lief had  come.  Still  Asbury  persevered  in  his  at- 
tempt to  hold  them  in  allegiance  to  Wesley  and  the 
Large  Minutes,  and  so  privately  exerted  his  influ- 
ence, and  now  in  the  Conference  asks  the  preachers 
to  sign  a  formal  instrument,  so  that  he  might  "  know 
on  whom  to  depend." 

It  would  appear  that  some,  possibly  without  a 
formal  renunciation  of  the  authority  of  the  Confer- 
ence, persisted  in  administering  the  sacraments.  Prob- 
ably they  waited  until  the  year  agreed  upon  for  the 
suspension  had  ended,  and  then  resumed,  believing 
that,  as  they  had  kept  their  part  of  the  contract,  they 
were  now  at  liberty  to  proceed  as  before. 

The  Sunday  after  this  Conference,  Mr.  Asbury 
writes :  "  I  am  persuaded  the  separation  of  some 
from  our  original  plan  about  the  ordinances  will, 
upon  the  whole,  have  a  tendency  to  unite  the  body 
together,  and  to  make  the  preachers  and  people  abide 
wherein  they  are  called."1 

Two  weeks  later  he  writes :  "  I  find  many  of  the 


i  Asbury 's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  345. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.     195 

people,  and  some  of  the  local  preachers,  quite  warm 
about  the  ordinances,  on  which  subject  there  is  much 
disputation."  l 

Asbury  is  now  on  his  way  to  the  Conference  at 
Baltimore.  On  the  llth  of  May  he  preached  at  Cul- 
peper  Court  House,  Virginia,  where  he  says :  "  Here 
I  heard  the  good  news  that  Britain  had  acknowledged 
the  independence  for  which  America  has  been  con- 
tending— may  it  be  so!  The  Lord  does  what  to 
him  seemeth  good."2  This  news  was  a  little  pre- 
mature, for  the  preliminary  articles  of  peace  were  not 
signed  until  the  30th  of  November,  1782,  and  the 
definitive  treaty  of  peace  between  England  and  the 
United  States  was  not  signed  until  the  3d  of  Sep- 
tember of  the  following  year ;  but  Sir  Guy  Carleton 
arrived  at  New  York  early  in  May,  1782,  with  in- 
structions to  promote  the  wishes  of  Great  Britain  for 
an  accommodation  with  the  United  States.  Still  the 
remark  is  useful  as  showing  the  sympathy  of  As- 
bury for  the  cause  of  the  young  Republic.  In  a 
few  days  we  find  him  holding  a  quarterly  meeting 
on  Fairfax  Circuit,  and  on  the  18th  he  writes :  "  I 
set  out  with  Brother  G.  [Does  he  mean  Gatch  or 
Glendcnning?],  who  has  given  up  his  separating  plan. 
The  Lord  has  conquered  him,  and  I  hope  that  all  who 
are  worthy  will  return."3  Asbury's  journal  gives  a 
very  brief  account  of  the  Conference  held  in  Balti- 
more in  May,  1782.  In  it  Asbury  says: 

"Monday,  21st.     A  few  of  us  began  Conference  in  Balti- 
more.    Next  day  we  had  a  full  meeting.    The  preachers  all 

» Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  345.       « Ibid.       « Id. ,  p.  344 


196    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

signed  the  agreement  proposed  at  the  Virginia  Conference,  and 
there  was  a  unanimous  resolve  to  adhere  to  the  old  Methodist 
plan.  We  spent  most  of  the  day  in  examining  the  preachers. 
We  had  regular  daily  preaching.  Monday  Brother  Ellis 
preached;  on  Tuesday  I  spoke  on  1  Tim.  iv,  12. 

"Wednesday,  23d.  We  had  many  things  before  us.  Our 
printing  plan  was  suspended  for  the  present  for  want  of  funds. 

"  Friday  25th.  Was  set  apart  for  fasting  and  prayer.  We 
had  a  love-feast.  The  Lord  was  present  and  all  was  well. 
The  preachers,  in  general  were  satisfied.  I  found  myself  bur- 
thened  with  labors  and  cares.  We  have  now  fifty-nine  travel- 
ing preachers,  and  eleven  thousand  and  seven  hundred  and 
eighty-five  in  society.  Our  young  men  are  serious  and  their 
gifts  enlarged." l 

His  principal  purpose  appears  to  have  been  to 
prevent  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  by  the 
Methodist  preachers,  and  to  keep  them  in  the  same 
relation  to  Wesley  and  the  Large  Minutes  as  they 
were  at  the  first  Conference  held  in  1773.  Hence  the 
request  for  signatures  to  the  new  agreement.  Thus 
from  time  to  time  he  drives  in  the  bolts,  and  then  rivets 
them  so  that  they  are  more  and  more  firmly  bound. 

The  Minutes  show  a  number  of  changes  in  the 
form,  order,  and  substance  of  the  questions  asked. 
The  standing  questions  are  brought  first,  and  the  tem- 
porary and  miscellaneous  questions  follow.  The  reg- 
ular questions  were :  "  1.  What  preachers  are  admitted 
into  connection?"2  "2.  What  preachers  remain  on 
trial?"  "3.  What  preachers  are  admitted  on  trial?" 
"  4.  Who  act  as  assistants?"  "  5.  Are  there  any  ob- 
jections to  any  of  the  preachers  ?"  "  6.  How  are 
the  preachers  stationed  ?"  "  7.  How  are  the  preachers 

i  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  346. 

»  Jesse  Lee  Bays  "  full  connection,"  History  of  Methodists,  p,  79. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.      197 

to  change  after  six  months?"  "8.  What  numbers 
are  there  in  society  ?"  "  9.  What  is  the  yearly  collec- 
tion?" The  answer  to  this  question  was  "  42£.  16s. 
3d."  "10.  How  was  it  expended?"  "Am.  On 
the  necessities  of  the  preachers."  Then  followed 
queries  of  a  less  permanent  nature,  thus,  "  11. 
What  shall  be  done  to  revive  the  work?"  " Ans. 
Hold  evening  meetings  and  preach  in  the  mornings 
in  convenient  places."  The  matter  of  equality  of  sup- 
port was  met  in  this  way:  "  Ques.  12.  What  shall  be 
done  to  get  a  regular  and  impartial  supply  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  preachers?"  " Ans.  Let  every- 
thing they  receive,  either  in  money  or  clothing,  be 
valued  by  the  preachers  and  stewards  at  quarterly 
meeting,  and  an  account  of  the  deficiency  given  in  to 
the  Conference,  that  he  may  be  supplied  by  the 
profits  arising  from  the  books  and  the  Conference 
collections."  "  Ques.  13.  How  shall  we  more  effect- 
ually guard  against  disorderly  traveling  preachers?" 
"  Ans.  Write  at  the  bottom  of  every  certificate :  The 
authority  this  conveys  is  limited  to  next  Conference.*' 
"  Ques.  14.  How  must  we  do  if  a  preacher  will  not 
desist  after  being  found  guilty?"  "Ans.  Let  the 
nearest  assistant  stop  him  immediately.  In  Brother 
Asbury's  absence,  let  the  preachers  inform  the  people 
of  these  rules."  "  Ques.  1 5.  How  shall  we  more  ef- 
fectually guard  against  disorderly  local  preachers?" 
"Ans.  Write  at  the  bottom  of  the  certificate:  This 
conveys  authority  no  longer  than  you  walk  uprightly 
and  submit  to  the  direction  of  the  assistant  preacher." 
Thus  prudential  regulations  were  made  so  that  the 


198    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

license  of  a  preacher  was  good  only  for  one  year,  and 
if  it  was  not  then  renewed  the  individual  lost  his  rank. 

The  sixteenth  question  was  another  act  of  pro- 
spective excommunication.  It  read :  "  By  what  rule 
shall  we  conduct  ourselves  towards  the  preachers  and 
people  that  separate  from  us?"  According  to  the 
printed  Minutes,  the  answer  was,  "Disown  them." 
Separation,  as  used  by  Asbury,  meant  the  administra- 
tion of  the  sacraments  by  the  Methodist  preachers  and 
receiving  them  at  their  hands  by  the  people,  which 
the  question  and  answer  prove  was  still  done  by 
some,  possibly,  as  already  suggested,  on  the  ground 
that  they  had  waited  a  year  and  yet  no  relief  had 
come. 

Dr.  Leroy  M.  Lee  had  access  to  manuscript  Min- 
utes of  the  Conference  held  at  "Ellis's  Meeting- 
house" in  1782,  1783,  and  1784,  and  he  says  that  the 
answer  given  in  the  manuscript  journal  was  not  in  the 
two  words  "  disown  them, "  but  was,  "  Put  the  peo- 
ple out  of  society  when  they  receive,  and  the  preachers 
when  they  administer,  the  ordinances,  if  they  have 
been  previously  warned."1 

It  is  probable  that  extreme  measures  were  not  re- 
sorted to  until  the  parties  had  been  particularly 
warned;  but  there  was  an  unmistakable  determination 
to  exclude  all  who  did  not  yield  to  the  rule  as 
agreed  upon. 

For  the  first  time  a  certificate  of  membership  for 
the  laity  was  ordered.  Question  17  was:  "  How  shall 


>  Leroy  M.  Lee,  D.  D.,  Life  of  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  Nashville,  1860,  pp. 
100-102. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.       199 

we  more  effectually  guard  against  impostors  ?"  "Ans. 
Let  no  person  remove  from  North  to  South  without 
a  certificate  from  the  assistant  preacher,  and  let  no 
one  be  received  into  society  without."  Or,  as  Lee 
phrases  it:  "To  guard  against  disorderly  members, 
it  was  concluded  that  no  member  of  our  society 
should  remove  to  another  part  of  the  country  without 
a  certificate  from  the  assistant  preacher,  and  if  they 
did  not  carry  with  them  such  a  certificate,  they  should 
not  be  received  into  society."1 

The  eighteenth  question  brings  us  once  more  to  the 
sacramental  question.  It  was  as  follows :  "  Shall  we 
erase  that  question  proposed  in  Deer  Creek  Confer- 
ence respecting  the  ordinances  ?  "  " Ans.  Undoubtedly 
we  must.  It  can  have  no  place  in  our  Minutes  while 
we  stand  to  our  agreement  signed  in  Conference;  it  is 
therefore  disannulled."  The,  "Deer  Creek  Confer- 
ence" was  held  "at  a  preaching-house  near  Deer 
Creek,  in  Harford  County,  Md.,  May  20,  1777." 
Turning  to  the  printed  Minutes  for  that  year,  we  do 
not  find  any  reference  to  the  sacraments.  It  is  mani- 
fest that  something  was  expunged  so  that  it  did  not 
appear  when,  in  1795,  for  the  first  time,  the  Minutes 
of  1777  were  printed.  Just  how  much  was  stricken 
out  we  can  not  tell ;  but,  as  already  seen,  Garrettson 
states  that  the  question,  "Shall  the  preachers  in 
America  administer  the  ordinances?"  was  asked;  or, 
as  Gatch  has  it  in  his  manuscript  journal,  it  Tas 
asked,  "What  shall  be  done  with  respect  to  the  or- 

i  Jesse  Lee,  Hist,  of  Met  hodista,  1810,  p.  80. 


200    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

dinances?"  and  Garrettson  says  it  was  agreed  to  "sus- 
pend them  until  the  next  Conference."  Gatch  also 
states  that  the  question  of  altering  the  "  original  plan  " 
was  considered,  and  the  preachers  agreed  that  the 
next  Conference  would  show  them  more  clearly.1 

Mr.  Garrettson  says:  "The  question  was  asked, 
I  think,  by  Mr.  Rankin,  'Shall  we  administer  the 
ordinances  ?'  It  was  debated,  but  the  decision  was 
suspended  till  the  next  Conference."3 

Under  the  action  of  the  Conference  of  1782  all 
this  was  erased  from  the  Minutes  of  1777,  and  pos- 
sibly much  more;  and,  though  the  reference  is  only 
to  the  Deer  Creek  Conference,  it  is  probable  that  the 
principle  was  applied  to  the  Minutes  of  the  Fluvanna 
and  other  Conferences,  so  that  every  question  and 
every  decision  which  seemed  to  favor  the  idea  of 
Methodist  preachers  administering  the  sacraments  was 
expunged  from  the  manuscript  Minutes.  This  will 
account  for  the  silence  of  the  printed  Minutes  upon 
this  question,  excepting  where  they  show  adverse  ac- 
tion. The  legality  of  such  a  course  may  well  be 
doubted;  but  it  is  an  interesting  item  of  history,  and 
shows  that  Asbury  and  the  Conference  wanted  to  get 
rid  of  any  reference  to  that  which  the  Conference  at  this 
time  disapproved.  The  order  to  erase,  however, 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  some  transaction  had 
taken  place,  and  gave  it  a  sort  of  immortality. 

Right  in  connection  with  this  order  to  expunge  is  ( 


>  See  pp.  122,  123. 

*Garrettsou'8  Semi-centennial  Sermon  before  the  New  York  Con- 
ference. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.      201 

the   following   in  reference  to  the   Rev.    Devereux 
Jarratt : 

"The  Conference  acknowledge  their  obligations  to  the  Eev. 
Mr.  Jarratt  for  his  kind  and  friendly  services  to  the  preachers 
and  people  from  our  first  entrance  into  Virginia,  and  more 
particularly  for  attending  our  Conference  in  Sussex,  in  public 
and  private ;  and  advise  the  preachers  in  the  South  to  consult 
him  and  take  his  advice  in  the  absence  of  Brother  Asbury." 

This  is  the  first  resolution  of  thanks  adopted  by 
an  American  Methodist  Conference. 

The  nineteenth  question  was :  "  Do  the  brethren 
in  Conference  unanimously  choose  Brother  Asbury  to 
act  according  to  Mr. Wesley's  original  appointment,  and 
preside  over  the  American  Conferences  and  the  whole 
work  ?  "  Ans.  "  Yes."  So  the  preachers  again  selected 
Mr.  Asbury  to  be  their  chief,  or,  in  other  words,  again 
agreed  to  recognize  him  as  Wesley's  general  assistant. 
This  was  the  formal  action  of  the  reunited  preachers. 
It  was  also  agreed  that  "  every  assistant  preacher  must 
so  order  his  circuit,  that  either  himself  or  one  of  his 
helpers  may  travel  with  Mr.  Asbury  through  his  cir- 
cuit." It  was  decided  to  have  four  general  fasts  on 
the  first  Thursdays  in  June,  September,  January,  and 
April. 

The  twenty-second  and  last  question  was  for  the 
first  time  propounded,  namely :  "  When  and  where 
shall  our  next  Conferences  be  held?"  and  the  answer 
was:  "For  Virginia  the  first  Tuesday,  and  in  Balti- 
more the  last  Wednesday  in  May." l  Lee  remarks : 
"  This  was  the  first  time  that  this  question  was  ever 


>  Printed  Minutes,  1813,  pp.  33-37. 

14 


202     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

found  on  the  Minutes,"  and  "it  was  now  settled  and 
fixed  to  have  two  Conferences  in  each  year."  l 

In  the  interval  between  this  and  the  next  Confer- 
ence Asbury  traveled  very  extensively  through  New 
Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia, 
and  North  Carolina.  On  the  5th  of  April,  1783,  he 
writes:  "I  heard  the  news  that  peace  was  confirmed 
between  England  and  America.  I  had  various  exer- 
cises of  mind  on  the  occasion.  It  may  cause  great 
changes  to  take  place  amongst  us,  some  for  the  better 
and  some  for  the  worse.  It  may  make  against  the 
work  of  God.  Our  preachers  will  be  far  more  likely 
to  settle  in  the  world ;  and  our  people,  by  getting 
into  trade  and  acquiring  wealth,  may  drink  into  its 
spirit.  Believing  the  report  to  be  true,  I  took  some 
notice  of  it  while  I  treated  on  Acts  x,  36,  at  Brother 
Clayton's,  near  Halifax,  where  they  were  firing  their 
cannons  and  rejoicing  in  their  way  on  the  occasion." 
Then  he  adds :  "  This  day  I  prevailed  with  Brother 
Dickins  to  go  to  New  York,  where  I  expect  him  to 
be  far  more  useful  than  in  his  present  station."2 

Asbury  was  very  fearful  as  to  the  effect  of  peace 
and  prosperity  on  the  preachers  and  people,  but  Jesse 
Lee  saw  good  results.  He  says : 

"The  Revolutionary  War  being  now  closed,  and  a  general 
peace  established,  we  could  go  into  all  parts  of  the  country 
without  fear ;  and  we  soon  began  to  enlarge  our  borders,  and 
to  preach  in  many  places  where  we  had  not  been  before.  We 
soon  saw  the  fruit  of  our  labors  in  the  new  circuits,  and  in 


i  Jesse  Lee,  Hist,  of  Methodists,  p.  79. 
•  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  p.  355. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.      203 

various  parts  of  the  country,  even  in  old  places  where  we  had 
preached  in  former  years  with  but  little  success. 

"  One  thing  in  particular  that  opened  the  way  for  the  spread- 
ing of  the  gospel  by  our  preachers  was  this:  during  the  war, 
which  had  continued  seven  or  eight  years,  many  of  the  members 
of  our  societies  had,  through  feaV,  necessity,  or  choice,  moved 
into  the  back  settlements  and  into  new  parts  of  the  country;  and 
as  soon  as  the  National  peace  was  settled  and  the  way  was  open, 
they  solicited  us  to  come  among  them ;  and  by  their  earnest 
and  frequent  petitions,  both  verbal  and  written,  we  were  pre- 
vailed on  and  encouraged  to  go  among  them ;  and  they  were 
ready  to  receive  us  with  open  hands  and  willing  hearts,  and  to 
cry  out,  '  £kssed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.' 

"  The  Lord  prospered  us  much  in  the  thinly-settled  parts 
of  the  country,  where,  by  collecting  together  the  old  members 
of  our  society  and  by  joining  some  new  ones  with  them,  the 
work  greatly  revived,  and  the  heavenly  flame  of  religion 
spread  far  and  wide."  l 

A  new  era  for  the  Nation  and  for  the  Church  had 
begun,  and  this  new  era  was  to  bring  greater  pros- 
perity to  both.  As  the  time  for  the  Conferences  of 
1783  approached,  Asbury  turned  his  face  north- 
ward and  entered  Virginia,  and  on  the  18th  of 
April  held  a  quarterly  meeting  at  White  Oak  Chapel, 
as  he  had  the  year  before ;  and  Mr.  Jarratt  preached, 
and  administered  the  sacrament.2 

On  the  21st,  he  writes,  he  "  set  out  for  Bucking- 
ham, to  visit  some  who  have  been  separated  from  us 
on  account  of  the  ordinances,  and  my  spirit  was  re- 
freshed among  them;"3  so  the  difficulty  had  not  en- 
tirely disappeared. 

Then  he  says:  "After  long  rides  through  Flu- 
vanna  and  Orange  Circuits,  I  came  to  Petersburg  on 

1  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  pp.  tM,  85. 
»  Asbury '8  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  356        •Ibid. 


204  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Monday,  the  5th  of  May,  and  the  next  day  to 
Ellis's  Chapel.  "Wednesday,  7th,  our  Conference  be- 
gan at  this  place.  Some  young  laborers  were  taken 
in  to  assist  in  spreading  the  gospel,  which  greatly 
prospers  in  the  North.  We  all  agreed  in  the  spirit 
of  African  liberty,  and  strong  testimonies  were  borne 
in  its  favor  in  our  love-feast;  our  affairs  were  con- 
ducted in  love."1  That  is  all  he  tells  us  about  the 
Conference  at  "  Ellis's  Preaching-house"  in  1783. 

Lee  states  that  "  in  1783  the  eleventh  Conference 
began  at  Ellis's  Meeting-house,  Sussex  County,  Vir- 
ginia, on  the  6th  day  of  May,  and  adjourned  to  Balti- 
more to  the  27th  day  of  the  same  month."2  Asbury 
notes  that  the  Baltimore  session  began  on  the  26th. 
His  entry  is:  "Tuesday,  26th.  We  began  our  Confer- 
ence with  what  preachers  were  present.  On  Wednesday 
we  had  a  full  assembly,  which  lasted  until  Friday. 
We  had  a  love-feast,  and  parted  in  peace."8  The 
heading  of  the  printed  Minutes  is  in  harmony  with 
the  statement  of  Lee.  It  reads :  "  Held  at  Ellis's 
Preaching-house,  May  6,  1783,  and  adjourned  to  Bal- 
timore, the  27th."  The  probability  is  that  the  ad- 
journed session  was  appointed  for  the  27th,  but  that 
Asbury,  finding  a  number  of  preachers  in  Baltimore 
on  the  26th,  began  the  session  on  that  date.  The 
next  day  there  was  a  full  attendance,  because  the 
preachers  expected  the  Conference  to  convene  at  that 
time. 


>  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  556. 

•  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  82. 

•  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  VoL  I,  p.  356. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.      205 

The  Rev.  Jesse  Lee  was  an  interested  spectator  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  Conference  of  1782,  and  after 
its  adjournment  became  a  traveling  preacher.  At 
the  Conference  of  1783  he  was  formally  received  on 
trial,  so  that  many  of  his  accounts  of  these  early 
days  have  the  accuracy  of  an  eye-witness.  In  other 
particulars  he  gives  the  direct  evidence  of  those  who 
were  participants.  He  tells  us  that  "  at  this  Confer- 
ence the  preachers  fell  upon  a  new  plan  in  order  to 
provide  a  support  for  the  preachers'  wives.  They 
required  such  circuits  as  they  thought  able  to  raise 
a  certain  sum  of  money  for  the  support  of  the  preach- 
ers' wives  in  other  circuits.  The  minute  stands  thus: 
'Q.  What  sum  is  to  to  be  raised  for  the  support  of 
the  preachers'  wives?  A.  North  circuits  £200,  South 
circuits  £60.'  The  wives  to  be  provided  for,  the 
circuits  which  were  to  raise  the  money,  the  sum  to  be 
raised,  and  the  particular  sum  to  be  given  to  each 
preacher's  wife  were  all  specified  in  the  Minutes. 
This  plan  was  quite  new,  and  some  of  the  leading 
men  in  particular  circuits  did  not  approve  of  it,  and 
thought  it  unreasonable  that  they  should  raise  money 
for  a  woman  they  never  saw,  and  whose  husband 
had  never  preached  among  them.  But  the  Method- 
ist cause  is  but  one  in  every  place ;  and  he  who  loves 
his  neighbor  as  himself  will  feel  for  every  circuit, 
every  preacher,  and  every  preacher's  family." l 

The  question  to  which  he  refers  was  the  eighth  in 
the  list.  After  this  came  Question  9:  "How  is  this 


1  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  ibe  Methodists,  1810,  p.  83.  • 


206    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

sum  to  be  raised?  Ans.  Let  the  preachers  make  a 
small  collection  in  all  the  circuits.''  It  will  be  inter- 
esting also  to  quote  in  this  connection  the  sixteenth 
and  seventeenth  questions  with  their  answers : 

"  Quet.  16.  How  many  preachers'  wives  are  to  be  pro- 
vided for  ? 

"Ant.  Eleven. 

"Sisters — Forrest,  Everett,                Hagerty, 

Mair,  Kimble,                Pigman, 

Wyatt,  Ellis,                     Dickins. 

Thomas,  Watters, 

"  Ques.  17.  How  is  this  money  to  be  raised? 

"  Answer — 


Alleghany -    41. 

Berkeley 6 

Fairfax 10 

Frederick 8 

Calvert 6 

Baltimore 30 

Dorchester 12 

Little  York 6 

Carried  up ~  821. 


Brought  up 82?. 

Pennsylvania 30 

East  aud  West  Jersey 30 

Dover 20 

Somerset 8 

Annamessex 6 

Talbot 10 

Kent 20 

206 1. 


This  was  the  earliest  apportionment  for  a  common 
cause  in  the  history  of  American  Methodism,  and  was 
an  effort  to  solve  the  problem  of  carrying  on  an 
itinerancy  when  the  preachers  were  married  men  with 
families.  At  first  the  Methodist  ministers  in  the 
American  itinerancy  were  single  men,  who  could 
easily  be  moved  from  point  to  point  at  will,  and  could 
subsist  on  a  meager  support;  and  in  that  day  the  mar- 
riage of  a  Methodist  preacher  almost  invariably  meant 
his  retirement  from  the  "  traveling  ministry,"  or  his  en- 
trance into  the  ministry  of  some  other  denomination. 
But  as  the  married  ministers  increased  in  number 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.      207 

.he  work  grew  and  became  more  permanent,  it 
was  bund  necessary  to  provide  a  more  liberal  sup- 
port, BO  that  the  services  of  experienced  ministers 
mighi  be  retained. 

A  uew  minute  was  made  in  reference  to  local 
preachers  who  held  slaves  where  they  might  give 
them  their  freedom,  as  follows : 

"  Ques.  10.  What  shall  be  done  with  our  local  preachers 
who  hold  slaves,  contrary  to  the  laws  which  authorize  their 
freedom,  in  any  of  the  United  States? 

"Aw.  We  will  try  them  another  year.  In  the  meantime 
let  every  assistant  deal  faithfully  and  plainly  with  every  one, 
and  report  to  the  nerft  Conference.  It  may  then  be  necessary 
to  suspend  them. 

In  1780  the  Conference  disapproved  of  the  distil- 
lation of  spirituous  liquors;  this  Conference  expressed 
itself  against  making,  selling,  and  drinking  them. 
Thus  it  was  asked : 

"  Ques.  11.  Should  our  friends  be  permitted  to  make  spirit- 
uous liquors,  sell,  and  drink  them  in  drams? 

" Ans.  By  no  means;  we  think  it  wrong  in  its  nature  and 
consequences,  and  desire  all  our  preachers  to  teach  the  people 
by  precept  and  example  to  put  away  this  evil." 

Lee  naively  remarks:  "At  that  time  it  was  but 
seldom  known  that  a  Methodist  preacher  drank 
spirituous  liquors,  unless  in  cases  of  extreme  ne- 
cessity." l 

The  previous  year  four  general  fast-days  were 
ordered.  This  year  two  were  appointed,  for  "the 
first  Friday  in  January  and  April;  ana,  for  the  first 


i  Jesse  Le«,  History  of  Methodists,  p.  83. 


208    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

time,  thanksgiving-days  were  decreed,  in  the  follow- 
ing form : 

"  Ques.  14.  How  many  days  of  thanksgiving  shall  we  have 
for  our  public  peace,  temporal  and  spiritual  prosperity,  and  for 
the  glorious  work  of  God? 

"An*.  Two;  the  first  Thursdays  in  July  and  October." 

In  the  Conference  of  1778  two  general  stewards 
were  appointed;  but  from  that  time  the  Minutes 
make  no  mention  of  such  officers  until  this  year, 
when  Samuel  O wings  and  John  Orick  were  ap- 
pointed. 

In  answer  to  the  thirteenth  question — "  Ques.  13. 
What  can  be  done  to  supply  the  circuits  with  preach- 
ing in  time  of  Conference?" — it  was  decided  to  "let 
the  assistants  engage  as  many  local  preachers  as  can 
be  depended  upon;  and  such  among  them  as  are 
needy,  be  allowed  for  their  labor  in  proportion  with 
the  traveling  preachers." 

A  new  regulation  was  made  as  to  the  attendance 
of  the  preachers  upon  the  Conference  session.  It 
was  asked :  "  What  preachers  shall  attend  ?"  And  the 
answer  was:  "The  assistants,  and  those  who  are  to 
be  received  into  connection."  This  is  the  first  limit- 
ation upon  attendance  on  Conference.  Before,  any 
preacher  could  attend,  and  every  preacher  was  ex- 
pected to  be  present.  Now,  only  the  assistants,  or 
heads  of  Jtbe  circuits,  with  the  preachers  who  were  to 
be  formally  received  into  full  membership,  were  ex- 
pected to  attend.  The  other  preachers  were  to  re- 
main on  their  circuits. 

Lee   remarks  that  "the    intercourse    being  now 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.      209 

open  between  us  and  England,  we  thought  there  was 
danger  of  preachers  or  members  coming  from  that 
country,  to  preach  or  live  among  us,  whose  charac- 
ters might  not  be  good.  In  order  that  we  might 
not  be  imposed  upon,  the  following  regulation  was 
adopted." l  He  then  quotes  the  following  action : 

"  Ques.  12.  How  shall  we  conduct  ourselves  toward  any 
European  Methodists,  should  they  come  to  this  continent? 

"  Am.  We  will  not  receive  them  without  a  letter  of 
recommendation,  which  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  the 
truth  of." 

The  question  this  year  was  not  "  When  and  where 
shall  our  next  Conferences  be  held?"  but  "When 
and  where  shall  our  next  Conference  be  held?"  and 
the  answer  was:  "In  Baltimore,  the  4th  Tuesday 
in  May."2  This  was  a  direct  declaration  that  there 
was  really  but  one  Conference,  though  for  convenience 
it  might  meet  in  two  or  more  sections,  or,  in  other 
words,  hold  sessions  in  different  places. 

Mr.  Lee  tells  us  that  in  the  latter  part  of  this 
year  Mr.  Wesley  "  wrote  a  letter  to  America  which 
agreed  with  "  the  Minute  in  regard  to  receiving  Meth- 
odists from  Europe.8  This  is  probably  the  letter  to 
which  Mr.  Asbury  refers  in  his  journal  for  December 
24th.  He  was  at  that  time  in  the  northeastern  part 
of  North  Carolina.  The  entry  is  as  follows : 

"Wednesday,  24.  Set  out  in  the  rain  to  Hartfordtown— 
I  spoke  in  a  tavern.  The  people  seemed  wild  and  wicked  alto- 


» Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  85. 

•Printed  Minutes,  1773-1813,  p.  42. 

•Jesse  Lee,  Hist,  of  Methodist*,  1810,  p.  S&. 


210    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

gether.  I  journeyed  on  through  the  damp  weather  and  reached 
Pettigrew's  about  six  o'clock. 

"Here  I  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Wesley,  in  which  he 
directs  me  to  act  as  general  assistant,  and  to  receive  no  preach- 
ers from  Europe  that  are  not  recommended  by  him,  nor  any 
in  America  who  will  not  submit  to  me  and  to  the  Minutes  of 
the  Conference. 

"I  preached  in  Edenton  to  a  gay,  inattentive  people.  I 
was  much  pleased  with  Mr.  Pettigrew;  I  heard  him  preach, 
and  received  the  Lord's  Supper  at  his  hands.  Thence  I  crossed 
Chowan  River,  and  preached,  journeying  through  Bertie, 
Hertford,  and  Northampton  Counties,  to  considerable  congre- 
gations." * 

Lee  gives  the  following,  which  he  says  is  "an  ex- 
tract from  that  letter "  written  "  to  America :" 

"  BRISTOL,  October  3,  1783. 

"1.  Let  all  of  you  be  determined  to  abide  by  the  Method- 
istic  doctrine  and  discipline,  published  in  the  four  volumes 
of  sermons,  and  the  notes  upon  the  New  Testament,  together 
with  the  Large  Minutes  of  the  Conference. 

"2.  Beware  of  preachers  coming  from  Great  Britain  01 
Ireland  without  a  full  recommendation  from  me.  Three  of  our 
traveling  preachers  here  eagerly  desired  to  go  to  America,  but 
I  could  not  approve  of  it  by  any  means,  because  I  am  not  sat- 
isfied that  they  thoroughly  like  either  our  discipline  or  doc- 
trine. I  think  they  differ  from  our  judgment  in  one  or 
both.  Therefore,  if  these  or  any  others  come  without  my 
recommendation,  take  care  how  you  receive  them. 

"3.  Neither  should  you  receive  any  preachers,  however 
recommended,  who  will  not  be  subject  to  the  American  Confer- 
ence, and  cheerfully  conform  to  the  Minutes  both  of  the  En- 
glish and  American  Conferences. 

l<  4.  I  do  not  wish  our  American  brethren  to  receive  any 
who  make  any  difficulty  of  receiving  Francis  Asbury  as  the 
general  assistant. 

"  Undoubtedly  the  greatest  danger  to  the  work  of  God  in 
America  is  likely  to  arise  either  from  preachers  coming  from 

i  Asbury 's  Journal.  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  363. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.     211 

Europe,  or  from  such  as  will  arise  from  among  yourselves 
speaking  perverse  things^  or  bringing  in  among  you  new  doc- 
trines, particularly  Calvinian.  You  should  guard  against  this 
with  all  possible  care,  for  it  is  far  easier  to  keep  them  out  than 
to  thrust  them  out. 

"I  commend  you  all  to  the  grace  of  God,  and  am  your 
affectionate  friend  and  brother,  JOHN  WESLEY."  l 

This  letter  was  an  assertion  of  Wesley's  authority 
over  the  American  Methodists.  In  it  Wesley  gives 
an  explicit  recognition  of  the  regulations  in  the 
American  Minutes  as  binding  upon  the  American 
preachers,  and  also  gives  an  authoritative  recognition 
of  Francis  Asbury  as  his  general  assistant  in  America. 
So  Asbury  was  the  head  of  American  Methodism,  not 
only  by  the  agreement  of  the  American  preachers,  but 
also  by  the  direct  recognition  of  Mr.  Wesley. 

As  before '  stated,  the  Conference  of  1783  fixed 
Baltimore  as  the  seat  of  the  next  Conference,  using 
the  singular  instead  of  the  plural,  and  so  the  heading 
to  the  printed  Minutes  for  1784  states  that  it  "begun 
at  Ellis's  Preaching-house,  Virginia,  April  30,  1784, 
and  ended  at  Baltimore,  May  28th,  following."  That 
is  to  say,  it  was  the  same  Conference.  As  Lee  re- 
marks: "In  1784  the  twelfth  Conference  began  at 
Ellis's  chapel,  in  Virginia,  on  the  30th  day  of  April, 
and  ended  in  Baltimore  on  the  28th  of  May.  It  was 
considered  as  but  one  Conference,  although  they  met 
first  in  Virginia,  and  then  adjourned  to  Baltimore, 

» Jesse  Lee,  Hist,  of  Methodists,  1810,  pp.  85,  86;  Rev.  James  Youngs, 
A.  M.,  Hist,  of  Rise  and  Progress  of  Methodism,  New  Haven,  '<<30,  pp. 
280,  281 ;  W.  P.  Strickland,  Life  of  Francis  Asbury,  New  York,  LSSfc,  pp. 
r.l  132;  A.  Stevens.  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Chu-'ch,  1863, 
Vol.  II,  pp.  131, 132. 


212    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

where  the  business  was  finished."1  Asbury  records 
very  little  that  occurred  at  the  first  session  of  this 
year,  simply  remarking  that  it  lasted  two  days;  that 
Mr.  O'Kelly  "gave  a  good  sermon,"  and  Mr.  Jarratt 
"  gave  a  good  discourse,"  and  that  "  the  business  was 
conducted  with  uncommon  love  and  unity."2 

All  that  he  says  about  the  session  at  Baltimore  is 
found  in  four  lines:  "Tuesday,  25.  Our  Confer- 
ence began,  all  in  peace.  William  Glendenning  had 
been  devising  a  plan  to  lay  me  aside,  or  at  least  to 
abridge  my  powers.  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  settled  the 
point,  and  all  was  happy.  The  Conference  rose  on 
Friday  morning."3 

It  would  appear  from  this  that  Mr.  Glendenning, 
who  had  come  from  England  in  1774,  and  entered 
the  Conference  on  trial  in  1775,  was  not  satisfied  with 
the  great  power  possessed  by  Mr.  Asbury,  and  it  is 
probable  that  he  was  an  exponent  of  the  views  of 
others;  but  the  training  of  years,  in  respect  for  and 
submission  to  Mr.  Wesley,  caused  him,  and  those  he 
represented,  to  abandon  their  effort  to  depose  Mr. 
Asbury  or  to  limit  his  authority,  when  there  was  pro- 
duced a  letter  from  Mr.  Wesley,  in  which  he  practi- 
cally reappointed  Mr.  Asbury  to  be  his  general  as- 
sistant in  America.  This  doubtless  was  the  letter 
already  quoted.  Dr.  Stevens  says:  "The  letter  by 
which  Asbury  silenced  the  opposition  of  Glendenning 
was  addressed  by  Wesley  to  the  Conference."4  That 


» Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  88. 

•Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  887.         *1M>1. 

•A.  Stevens,  History  of  the  M.  E.  Chnrch.  1865, Vol.  II,  p.  181. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.     213 

the  letter  was  addressed  to  the  Conference  is  not  im- 
probable, but  there  is  no  evidence  of  that  excepting  in 
the  form  of  the  letter.  Lee  says  Wesley  "  wrote  a  letter 
to  America."1  And  it  may  be  that  it  was  addressed 
to  the  American  Methodists  generally,  and  sent  to 
the  care  of  Mr.  Asbury.  It  is  a  little  singular  that 
Wesley's  works  do  not  contain  this  letter  and  that 
Asbury  does  not  give  it  in  his  journal,  at  least  in 
substance.  Even  Lee  does  not  profess  to  present  the 
entire  letter,  but  only  that  which  he  calls  "  an  ex- 
tract." Youngs,  Strickland,  and  Stevens  doubtless 
copy  from  Jesse  Lee's  History,  and  he  appears  to  be 
the  only  one  of  that  day  who  professes  to  give  even 
an  extract  from  the  letter. 

It  is  quite  evident,  however,  that  the  whole  or 
part  of  such  a  letter  was  read  to  the  Conference.  This 
is  implied  in  Asbury's  reference,  and  Lee,  after  refer- 
ring to  certain  transactions  in  the  Conference,  remarks 
that  "The  Conference  then  adopted  the  directions 
which  Mr.  Wesley  had  written  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  preceding  year,  and  formed  a  rule  to  take  in  the 
substance  of  that  letter.  We  agreed  that  if  any 
European  Methodist  preachers  should  come  over,  rec- 
ommended by  Mr.  Wesley,  and  would  be  subject  to 
the  American  Conference,  preach  the  Methodist  doc- 
trine, keep  the  circuits  they  were  appointed  to,  and 
be  subject  to  Francis  Asbury  as  general  assistant, 
while  he  stands  approved  by  Mr.  Wesley  and  the 
Conference,  we  will  receive  them;  but  if  they  walk 
contrary  to  the  above  directions,  no  appointment 

»  L«e's  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p. 85. 


214   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

shall  prevent  them  from  being  excluded  from  our 
connection."1  Lee's  statement  is  sufficiently  accurate 
for  general  purposes ;  but  the  exact  action  of  the 
Conference  is  as  follows : 

"  Ques.  21.  How  shall  we  conduct  ourselves  towards 
European  preachers? 

"  Am.  If  they  are  recommended  by  Mr.  Wesley,  will  be 
subject  to  the  American  Conference,  preach  the  doctrine  taught 
in  the  four  volumes  of  Sermons  and  Notes  on  the  New  Testa- 
ment, keep  the  circuits  they  are  appointed  to,  follow  the  di- 
rections of  the  London  and  American  Minutes,  and  be  subject 
to  Francis  Asbury  as  general  assistant,  whilst  he  stands  ap- 
proved by  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  Conference,  we  shall  receive 
them ;  but  if  they  walk  contrary  to  the  above  directions,  no 
ancient  right  or  appointment  shall  prevent  their  being  ex- 
claded  from  our  connection."* 

This  acknowledges  the  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
and  under  him  the  authority  of  Mr.  Asbury.  It 
recognizes  the  Large  English  Minutes  as  law  in 
America  as  well  as  in  Great  Britain,  and  indorses 
the  American  Minutes  as  binding  upon  those  who 
serve  in  the  United  States.  It  will  be  noticed  that 
there  is  a  little  intimation  of  power  as  conceded  to 
"  the  Conference "  in  relation  to  Mr.  Asbury.  The 
"  European  preachers "  were  to  "  be  subject  to 
Francis  Asbury  as  general  assistant,  whilst  he  stands 
approved  by  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  Conference"  as 
though  Asbury  might  be  removed  from  office  when- 
ever "the  Conference"  disapproved  of  his  course. 
The  intimation  is  expressed  timidly  and  a  little  am- 
biguously, but  it  is  like  the  early  light  of  morning 

» Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  pp.  88,  89. 
•Printed  Minutes,  American  Conferences,  1773-1813,  p.  48. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.      215 

indicating  the  coming  day.  Perhaps  the  phrase  was 
a  concession  which  grew  out  of  discussion  started 
by  Glendenning's  opposition  to  Asbury's  absolute 
power — a  suggestion  to  the  effect  that  the  right  of 
government  naturally  belonged  to  the  Conference,  and 
that  some  day  it  might  assert  its  natural  right  to 
control.  Asbury  had  been  chosen  and  empowered 
by  the  Conference,  and,  therefore,  the  answer  seems 
to  mean  that  the  Conference  could  take  back  that 
which  it  had  given,  and  that,  if  it  did  so,  Asbury 
would  thereby  be  deposed  from  his  superintendency ; 
but  at  the  same  time  the  answer  acknowledges  the 
authority  of  Mr.  Wesley. 

The  Minutes  show  that  the  Conference  of  1784 
considered  a  number  of  practical  matters.  The  ques- 
tion was  asked,  "How  shall  we  reform  our  singing?" 
and  the  answer  was,  "Let  all  our  preachers  who 
have  any  knowledge  of  the  notes  improve  it  by 
learning  to  sing  true  themselves,  and  keeping  close  to 
Mr.  Wesley's  tunes  and  hymns,"  an  answer  that 
might  surprise  those  who  do  not  know  that  the  early 
Methodists  sung  "by  note,"  and  that  Mr.  Wesley 
published  music  for  them  to  sing.  Even  in  that  day 
the  musical  part  of  the  service  was  deemed  of  great 
moment. 

Financial  matters  had  their  share  of  attention. 

Question  15  was :  "  How  shall  we  enlarge  the  Con- 
ference collection  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  preachers?" 

Answer:  "Let  there  be  a  public  collection  in  alJ 
the  principal  places  in  the  circuits,  and  brought  to 
Conference." 


216    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Question  16,  "  What  preachers'  wives  are  to  be 
provided  for?"  brought  the  answer: 

«'  Sisters— Wyatt,  Scott,  O'Kelly, 

Moore,  Forrest,  Drumgole, 

Thomaa,  Pigman,  .Dickins; 

Mair,  Hagerty, 

Ellis,  Morris, 

making  thirteen  as  against  eleven  of  the  year  before. 
The  names  of  Mrs.  Moore,  Mrs.  Scott,  Mrs.  Morris, 
Mrs.  O'Kelly,  and  Mrs.  Drumgole  are  new,  while 
the  names  of  Mrs.  Everett,  Mrs.  Kimble,  and  Mrs. 
Waiters,  which  were  in  the  list  of  the  preceding 
year,  do  not  appear  in  this.  As  in  the  previous 
year,  so  in  this,  the  amount  for  their  support  was 
apportioned  to  the  circuits,  and  there  was  added  the 
note :  "  Let  every  assistant  preacher  see  that  this 
money  is  collected  and  paid  quarterly."  For  the 
first  time,  there  is  a  distinction  made  as  to  the  sup- 
port of  Mr.  Asbury.  It  was  asked : 

"  Ques.  18.  What  shall  be  allowed  the  General  Assistant 
yearly  ? 

"  Am.  Twenty-four  pounds,  with  his  expenses  for  horses 
and  traveling,  brought  to  and  paid  at  Conference." 

In  1774  it  was  agreed  "  for  every  assistant  to 
make  a  general  collection  at  Easter  in  the  circuits 
where  they  labor,  to  be  applied  to  the  sinking  of  the 
debts  on  the  houses  and  relieving  the  preachers  in 
want."  This  year  it  was  asked  : 

"  Ques.  10.  What  can  be  done  towards  erecting  new 
chapels,  and  discharging  the  debts  on  those  already  built? 

"  Ans.  Let  the  assistant  preacher  put  a  yearly  subscrip- 
tion through  the  circuits,  and  insist  upon  every  member  that 
is  not  supported  by  charity  to  give  something ;  let  them  sub- 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.     217 

scribe  the  first  quarter,  and  pay  the  second ;  and  the  money  to 
be  applied  by  two  general  stewards." 

This  was  the  first  General  Church  Extension  So- 
ciety in  American  Methodism.  There  was  a  new  ar- 
rangement in  the  matter  of  discipline : 

"Ques.  8.  How  shall  we  keep  good  order  among  the 
preachers,  and  provide  for  contingencies  in  the  vacancy  of 
Conference,  and  absence  of  the  general  assistant  ? 

"  Ana.  Let  any  three  assistants  do  what  may  be  thought 
most  eligible,  call  to  an  account,  change,  suspend,  or  receive  a 
preacher  till  Conference." 

Even  in  that  early  day  there  were  places  which 
were  difficult  to  sustain,  and  so  it  was  asked : 

"  Ques.  9.  What  can  be  done  with  those  places  we  have 
long  tried,  and  appear  to  grow  worse  every  year  ? 

"  Ans.  If  you  are  obliged  to  make  use  of  such  places,  to 
get  to  more  valuable  ones,  appoint  no  public  preaching,  but 
only  meet  society  in  the  evening,  or  speak  to  the  black 
people." 

It  was  deemed  necessary  to  warn  the  people 
against  extravagance  in  dress,  and  to  urge  the  preach- 
ers to  set  the  people  an  example  in  this  particular, 
as  will  be  seen  by  the  following  question  and  answer : 

"  Ques.  11.  How  shall  we  prevent  superfluity  in  dress 
among  our  people  ? 

"  Ans.  Let  the  preachers  carefully  avoid  everything  of 
this  kind  in  themselves,  and  speak  frequently  and  faithfully 
against  it  in  all  our  societies." 

The  anti-slavery  sentiment  of  the  Conference 
again  asserted  itself,  as  follows : 

"  Ques.  12.  What  shall  we  do  with  our  friends  that  will 
buy  and  sell  slaves? 

"Ans.  If  they  buy  with  no  other  design  than  to  hold 
them  as  slaves,  and  have  been  previously  warned,  they  shall 
be  expelled,  and  permitted  to  sell  on  no  consideration." 

15 


218  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"  Qua.  13.  What  shall  we  do  with  our  local  preachers 
who  will  not  emancipate  their  slaves  in  the  States  where  the 
laws  admit  it? 

"Ant.  Try  those  in  Virginia  another  year,  and  suspend 
the  preachers  in  Maryland,  Delaware,  Pennsylvania,  and  New 
Jersey. 

"  Ques.  22.  What  shall  be  done  with  our  traveling  preachers 
that  now  are,  or  hereafter  shall  be,  possessed  of  slaves,  and  re- 
fuse to  manumit  them  where  the  law  permits  ? 

"  Ans.    Employ  them  no  more." 

Lee  remarks :  "  However  good  the  intention  of 
the  preachers  might  be  in  framing  these  rules,  we  are 
well  assured  that  they,  never  were  of  any  particu- 
lar service  to  our  societies.  Some  of  the  slaves,  how- 
ever, obtained  their  freedom  in  consequence  of  these 
rules."  l  But  then  he  wrote  in  1809. 

For  the  first  time  it  was  asked :  "  What  preachers 
have  died  this  year?"  And  the  answer  was,  "Henry 
Medcalf  and  William  Wright,"  the  first  of  a  long  Hue 
which  has  appeared  in  the  Minutes  to  this  day. 

A  new  regulation  was  made  in  reference  to  fast 
days: 

"  Qucs.  23.  How  shall  we  more  effectually  appoint  and  keep 
days  of  fasting? 

"  Ant.  By  writing  it  upon  every  class-paper,  to  be  the  first 
Friday  after  every  quarterly  meeting." 

The  twenty-fourth  and  last  question  was  :  "  When 
and  where  shall  our  next  Conferences  be  held  ?"  and 
the  answer  was :  "  The  first  at  Green  Hills  (North 
Carolina)  Friday,  29th,  and  Saturday,  30th,  of  April  ; 


1  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  88. 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.      219 

the  second  in  Virginia,  at  Conference  Chapel,  May 
8th  ;  the  third  in  Maryland,  Baltimore,  the  15th  day 
of  June."1 

So  that  now  the  work  has  increased  to  such  an 
extent  that  it  is  necessary  to  have  three  meeting- 
places  for  the  Conference — one  in  North  Carolina, 
one  in  Virginia,  and  one  in  Maryland. 

Lee  says:  "Here  end  the  Minutes  that  were  for- 
merly taken  and  kept  in  manuscript,  and  not  printed 
until  1795.  After  this  all  our  Annual  Minutes  were 
printed  every  year."2  That  is  to  say,  the  Minutes 
taken  from  1773  to  1784  inclusive  were  kept  in  man- 
uscript until  1795.  Beginning  with  the  Conference 
of  1785,  the  Minutes  of  each  Conference  were  pub- 
lished annually.  In  1795  the  printed  Minutes  were 
collected,  and  with  the  Minutes  from  1773  to  1784, 
were  printed  in  one  volume,3  and  in  1813  the  Min- 
utes of  all  the  Conferences  from  1773  down  to  that 
date  were  published  in  a  single  volume. 

It  was  the  end  of  the  period  of  manuscript 
Minutes,  and,  as  will  be  seen,  it  was  the  end  of 
the  Colonial  period,  so  to  speak,  of  American 
Methodism. 

The  American  colonies  had  become  an  independ- 
ent nation  and  American  Methodism  was  about  to  be- 
come an  independent  Church. 

But  before  we  take  leave  of  this  preliminary  stage 
of  American  Methodism,  let  us  glance  at  the  picture 


» Minute*  1773-1813,  pp.  43-48. 

*  Jesse  Lee,  Hist,  of  Methodist*,  1810,    p.  89.       *  Id,  p.  45. 


220    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

of  the  Conference  of  1784,  as  given  us  by  the  Rev. 
Thomas  Ware.     He  says : 

"In  the  spring  of  1784,  the  Conference  sat  at  Baltimore, 
which  was  the  first  I  attended.  There  was  quite  a  number  of 
preachers  present.  Although  there  were  but  few  on  whose 
heads  time  had  begun  to  snow,  yet  several  of  them  appeared 
to  be  wayworn  and  weather-beaten  into  premature  old  age. 
The  whole  number  of  itinerant  preachers  in  America  at  that 
time  was  eighty-three ;  stations  and  circuits,  sixty-four ;  and 
members  in  society,  fourteen  thousand  nine  hundred  and 
eighty-eight.  I  doubt  whether  there  ever  has  been  a  Confer- 
ence among  us  in  which  an  equal  number  could  be  found  in 
proportion  to  the  whole  so  dead  to  the  world  and  so  gifted 
and  enterprising  as  were  present  at  the  Conference  of  1784. 
They  had  much  to  suffer  at  that  early  period  of  our  history 
and  especially  during  the  Revolutionary  struggle. 

"  Among  these  pioneers,  Asbury,by  common  consent,  stood 
first  and  chief.  There  was  something  in  his  person,  his  eye,  his 
mien,  and  in  the  music  of  his  voice  which  interested  all  who 
saw  and  heard  him.  He  possessed  much  natural  wit,  and  was 
capable  of  the  severest  satire;  but  grace  and  good  sense  so 
far  predominated,  that  he  never  descended  to  anything  be- 
neath the  dignity  of  a  man  and  a  Christian  minister.  In 
prayer  he  excelled.  Had  he  been  equally  eloquent  in  preaching, 
he  would  have  excited  universal  admiration  as  a  pulpit  orator. 
But  when  he  was  heard-for  the  first  time,  the  power  and  unc- 
tion with  which  he  prayed  would  naturally  so  raise  the  expec- 
tation of  his  auditors  that  they  were  liable  to  be  disappointed 
with  his  preaching;  for,  although  he  always  preached  well,  in 
his  sermons  he  seldom,  if  ever,  reached  that  high  and  com- 
prehensive flow  of  thought  and  expression — that  expansive 
and  appropriate  diction — which  always  characterized  his 
prayers.  This  may  be  accounted  for,  in  part  at  least,  from  the 
fact  stated  by  the  late  Rev.  Freeborn  Garrettson  in  preaching 
his  funeral  sermon.  '  He  prayed,'  said  the  venerable  Garrett- 
son,  '  the  best,  and  he  prayed  the  most  of  any  man  I  ever 
knew.'  His  long-continued  rides  prevented  his  preaching  a<» 
often  as  some  others;  but  he  could  find  a  throne  of  grace,  if 
not  a  congregation,  upon  the  road.  Next  to  him,  in  the  t-sti- 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.      221 

mation  of  many,  stood  the  placid  Tunnell,  the  philosophical 
Gill,  and  the  pathetic  Pedicord.  It  would  be  difficult  to  de- 
termine to -which  of  these  primitive  missionaries,  as  men  of 
eminent  talents  and  usefulness,  the  preference  should  be 
given." l 

Such  is  the  passing  glance  which  a  contemporary 
gives  us  of  the  Conference  of  that  day.  There  were 
other  noted  men  he  does  not  take  time  to  point  out; 
but  above  them  all  looms  the  strongest  character, 
namely,  that  of  Asbury.  In  spite  of  the  pressing  de- 
mands of  the  preachers  and  people  for  that  which  was 
deemed  absolutely  necessary  for  their  Christian  wel- 
fare, he  had  held  American  Methodism  in  allegiance 
to  what  he  believed  was  right.  Though  at  one  time 
a  seceder  from  the  regular  Conference,  which  repre- 
sented the  majority,  he  had,  by  his  mighty  will,  swung 
the  regular  Conference  into  line,  with  his  seceding 
Conference,  and  made  them  one.  He  evidently  be- 
lieved that  it  was  the  duty  of  Methodists  in  America 
to  remain  in  obedience  to  Mr.  Wesley,  and  in  sub- 
mission to  what  he  understood  were  the  traditions  of 
early  Wesleyan  Methodism  as  to  the  sacraments. 
Many  will  hold  that  under  such  circumstances  of 
extreme  need  he  was  in  error;  but  whether  he  was 
right  or  wrong,  it  must  be  admitted  that  what  he  ac- 
complished was  a  great  achievement,  showing  vast 
personal  power  on  his  part,  and  on  the  part  of  the 
people  great  devotion  to  Wesley  and  traditional 
Methodism. 

Whatever  may   be   thought  of  his  ideas  or  the 


1  Autobiography  of  Rev.  Thomas  Ware,  New  York,  1840,  p.  83. 


222    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

means  employed,  the  fact  remains  that  through  hi& 
efforts  American  Methodism  at  this  time  presented  a 
united  Conference  in  allegiance  to  Mr.  Wesley,  and 
awaiting  his  direction. 

The  Conference  had  little  if  any  actual  power  in  a 
legal  sense.  Indeed,  it  may  be  said  that  its  only 
power  was  in  the  influence  of  the  expressed  sentiments 
of  its  members. 

With  the  exception  of  a  short  interval,  in  which 
the  Virginia  Conference  experimented  in  the  matter 
of  self-government,  the  American  Conference  had  no 
real  control  of  its  own  affairs. 

It  began  in  1773  with  a  recognition  of  Mr.  Wesley 
and  the  Large  English  Minutes.  It  conceded  the  right 
of  Mr.  Wesley  to  direct,  and,  with  great  emphasis,  con- 
fessed its  duty  to  obey  his  commands.  There  was 
something  in  the  nature  of  home  rule ;  for  regulations 
were  made  for  local  affairs  without  direct  appeal  to 
Mr.  Wesley,  but  these  were  made  because  of  necessi- 
ties arising  out  of  new  conditions  in  the  new  country; 
but  even  they  were  subordinate  to  Wesley,  and  not 
contrary  to  the  English  Minutes. 

Even  Mr.  Asbury  himself  was  chosen  by  the 
preachers,  in  several  sessions  of  the  Conference,  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  at  one  time  been  appointed  by 
Mr.  Wesley  as  his  assistant  in  America ;  and,  on  the 
same  principle,  as  the  supposed  representative  of 
Wesley,  they  conceded  to  him  power  similar  to  that 
which  Wesley  himself  would  have  used  had  he  been 
in  America.  Thus,  on  the  question  as  to  how  far  As- 
bury's  power  as  general  assistant  should  extend,  they 


AMERICAN  CONFERENCE,  1782  TO  1784.      223 

agreed  that  "on  hearing  every  preacher  for  and 
against  what  is  in  debate,  the  right  of  determination 
shall  rest  with  him  according  to  the  Minutes."1  It 
would  appear,  therefore,  that  the  Conference  had  no 
right  to  decide,  though  it  might  debate.  Doubtless 
the  opinions  expressed  by  the  members  of  the  Confer- 
ence modified  Asbury's  views  in  regard  to  many  mat- 
ters, yet  he  remained  the  authority  toadecide,  and  they 
took  no  action  against  his  will.  The  members  of  the 
Conference  had  a  right  to  speak  for  or  against  any 
proposition,  but  "the  right  of  determination  "  rested 
with  Mr.  Asbury.  It  was  personal  government  of  a 
very  absolute  character. 

In  the  primitive  conditions  of  the  organization, 
and  the  peculiar  conditions  of  the  country  at  that 
time,  it  had  some  redeeming  features,  for  it  gave 
unity  to  the  work  amid  unsettled  surroundings 
and  a  shifting  ministry.  Times,  however,  were 
changing,  and  methods  likewise  must  change;  and, 
notwithstanding  the  personal  authority  of  Asbury, 
there  were  already  indications  in  the  expressed  feel- 
ings of  individuals,  and  even  in  the  under-current  of 
the  Conference,  that  pointed  to  a  time  when  the  Con- 
ference would  be  supreme. 

i  Printed  Minutes,  1773-1813,  p.  20. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

WESLEY'S  PLAN  FOR  THE  REORGANIZATION  OP 
AMERICAN  METHODISM. 

THE  year  1784  brings  us  to  the  time  when  Wes- 
ley drew,  signed,  and  enrolled  the  Deed  of  Dec- 
laration by  which  the  Conference  in  Great  Britain 
was  legally  defined,  and  by  which,  on  the  death  of 
Mr.  Wesley  in  1791,  the  Conference  was  invested 
with  supreme  governing  power. 

Having  provided  for  the  perpetuity  of  British 
Methodism,  he  again  turns  his  thoughts  toward 
America.  This  was  in  harmony  with  the  principles 
which  controlled  him ;  for  if  it  was  necessary  to  devise 
some  plan  to  perpetuate  Methodism  in  Britain  it  was 
equally  urgent  that  some  plan  should  be  provided  for 
the  branch  across  the  Atlantic. 

Haste  was  necessary;  for  Wesley  was  eighty-one 
years  of  age,  and  the  appeals  from  America  had  been 
many  and  pressing.  The  mass  of  the  American 
Methodists  were  without  the  sacraments;  for  there 
were  very  few  clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England 
left  in  the  new  country.  Throughout  the  land  there 
was  general  sacramental  destitution.  Children  and 
adults  went  unbaptized,  and  the  people  were  not  per- 
mitted to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Now  was 
the  time  for  Wesley,  the  recognized  head  of  the 
American  Methodists,  to  act.  If  he  delayed,  death 
224 


WESLEY'S  PLAN  FOR  REORGANIZATION.      225 

might  prevent  bis  acting.  If  he  hesitated  longer,  the 
preachers  and  societies  which  Asbury  had  held  to- 
gether might  be  scattered  and  lost;  for  it  was  only 
their  reverence  for  Wesley  that  induced  the  majority 
to  yield  their  convictions  and  await  his  action. 

The  time  had  come;  for  English  ecclesiastical 
law  no  longer  applied  to  that  part  of  North  America. 
The  former  Colonies  were  now  an  independent  coun- 
try, and  the  Church  of  England  had  no  authority  in 
the  United  States  of  America.  Wesley  recognized 
not  only  the  changed  political  condition  of  the  new 
country,  but  also  its  changed  ecclesiastical  status.  He 
therefore  felt  free  to  act;  for  his  regard  for  the  English 
State  Church,  which  had  heretofore  restrained  him, 
did  not  bind  him  as  to  a  country  where  that  State 
Church  did  not  exist. 

He  had  long  held  that  bishops  and  presbyters  were 
the  same  clerical  order,  and,  as  he  reasoned,  had  "the 
same  right  to  ordain."  As  he  could  not  induce  the 
English  bishops  to  ordain  any  of  his  preachers  for 
America,  he  determined  to  exercise  the  power  which 
he  believed  vested  in  presbyters;  so  he  selected 
Richard  Whatcoat  and  Thomas  Vasey  as  the  persons 
he  would  ordain  and  send  to  America. 

In  his  journal,  under  date  of  September  1,  1784, 
he  says:  "Being  now  clear  in  my  own  mind,  I  took 
a  stop  which  I  had  long  weighed  in  my  mind,  and 
appointed  Mr.  Whatcoat  and  Mr.  Vasey  to  go  and 
serve  the  desolate  sheep  in  America,  which  I  verily 
believe,  will  be  much  to  the  glory  of  God."1  In 

» Wesley '8  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  Vol.  IV,  p.  602. 


226     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

these  ordinations  he  was  assisted  by  the  Rev.  Thomas 
Coke,  LL.  D.,  and  the  Rev.  James  Creighton,1  both  of 
whom  had  been  regularly  ordained  in  the  Church  of 
England,  and  both  of  these  presbyters  appear  in  the 
list  of  members  of  the  English  Wesleyan  Conference 
as  mentioned  in  the  Deed  of  Declaration. 

Referring  to  this  matter  about  two  years  later, 
Wesley  says:  "Judging  this  [namely,  the  peculiar 
condition  of  the  societies  in  America  after  the  war] 
to  be  a  case  of  necessity,  I  took  a  step  which,  for 
peace'and  quietness,  I  had  refrained  from  taking  many 
years;  I  exercised  that  power  which  I  am  fully  per- 
suaded the  great  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  the  Church 
has  given  me.  I  appointed  three  of  our  laborers  to 
go  and  help  them,  by  not  only  preaching  the  word  of 
God,  but  likewise  administering  the  Lord's  Supper 
and  baptizing  their  children  throughout  that  vast 
tract  of  land." 2 

As  we  have  in  another  work  discussed  Wesley's 
right  to  ordain  under  such  circumstances,  we  will  not 
present  the  arguments  in  this  place.* 

Having  ordained  these  ministers  for  America,  it  is 
plain  that  he  intended  that  the  Methodists  in  America 
should  receive  the  sacraments  from  their  own  ordained 
ministers,  and  that  in  this  particular  they  should  be 
independent  of  all  other  ecclesiastical  bodies. 

He  intended  not  only  that  they  should  have  the 

»  Coke  and  Moore's  Life  of  Wesley,  p.  459;  Drew's  Life  of  Coke,  p. 
73;  Tyerman's  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  434. 

*  English  Minutes,  1786;  Drew's  Life  of  Coke,  Amer.  Ed.,  1847,  p.  73. 

•S«e  The  Evolution  of  Episcopacy  and  Organic  Methodism,  by  Rev. 
T.  B.  Neely,  Ph.  D.,  D.  D.,  New  York,  1888,  pp.  S&-234. 


WESLEY'S  PLAN  FOR  REORGANIZATION.      227 

sacraments  from  their  own  ministers,  but  also  that 
they  should  have  a  super-visional  government ;  and  so 
he  "appointed  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Francis  Asbury  to 
be  joint  superintendents  over  our  brethren  in  North 
America," l  thus  expressing  his  desire  that  there 
should  be  a  superintendency  to  supervise  or  oversee 
the  work  in  America.  To  this  office  Mr.  Wesley  set 
apart  the  Rev.  Dr.  Coke,  and  gave  him  a  certificate 
to  that  effect  in  the  following  testimonial  letter: 

"To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  JOHN 
WESLEY,  late  Fellow  of  Lincoln  College,  in  Oxford, 
Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  seudeth  greeting : 

"  Whereas,  many  of  the  people  in  the  Southern 
provinces  of  North  America  who  desire  to  continue 
under  my  care,  and  still  adhere  to  the  doctrine  and 
discipline  of  the  Church  of  England,  are  greatly  dis- 
tressed for  want  of  ministers  to  administer  the  sacra- 
ments of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  according 
to  the  usage  of  the  same  Church;  and  whereas,  there 
does  not  appear  to  be  any  other  way  of  supplying 
them  with  ministers — 

"  Know  all  men,  that  I,  John  Wesley,  think  my- 
self to  be  providentially  called  at  this  time  to  set 
apart  some  persons  for  the  work  of  the  ministry  in 
America;  and  therefore,  under  the  protection  of  Al- 
mighty God,  and  with  a  single  eye  to  his  glory,  I 
have  this  day  set  apart  as  a  superintendent,  by  the 
imposition  of  my  hands  and  prayer  (being  assisted  by 
other  ordained  ministers),  Thomas  Coke,  Doctor  of 
Civil  Law,  a  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England, 

'Circular  Letter  to  American  Methodists,  1784.    See  pp.  231-234. 


228    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

and  a  man  whom  I  judge  to  be  well  qualified  for  that 
great  work.  And  I  do  hereby  recommend  him  to  all 
whom  it  may  concern  as  a  fit  person  to  preside  over 
the  flock  of  Christ. 

"In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my 
hand  and  seal,  this  second  day  of  September,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  One  Thousand  Seven  Hundred  and 
Eighty-four.  JOHN  WESLEY."  ' 

It  will  be  noticed  that  this  arrangement  was  in- 
tended for  the  "Southern  provinces  of  North 
America;"  that  is  to  say,  the  part  not  under  British 
control,  or,  in  other  words,  the  United  States  of 
America.  The  letter  also  shows  that  he  understood 
that  the  American  Methodists  adhered  "to  the  doc- 
trine and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  England,"  but 
he  does  not  intimate  that  he  desires  them  to  be  a 
part  of  the  Church  of  England.  On  the  contrary,  in 
another  letter  he  declares  they  are  "  totally  disen- 
tangled "  from  that  body,  and  says  that  he  "  dare  not 
entangle  them  again."2  There  seems  to  be,  however, 
an  intimation  that  he  desired  them  to  be  somewhat 
like  the  Anglican  Church  in  "  doctrine  and  disci- 
pline," and  it  is  well  known  that  he  preferred  the 
episcopal  form  of  government. 

It  must  be  inferred,  also,  that  Mr.  Wesley  intended 
that  the  new  superintendency  should  be  different  from 
the  position  of  the  former  assistant  or  general  assist- 
ant. The  change  of  name  indicates  a  change  in  the 
character  of  the  office,  and  the  certificate  given  to  Dr. 

1  Samuel  Drew,  Life  of  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL  D.,  New  York,  1847, 
p.  74. 

2  Wesley's  Circular  Letter  to  American  Methodists,  1784,  p.  233. 


WESLEY'S  PLAN  FOR  REORGANIZATION.      229 

Coke  states  that  the  superintendent  is  "to  preside 
over  the  flock  of  Christ."  His  office,  therefore,  was 
a  presidency,  and  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the 
phrase  "the  flock  of  Christ"  occurs  in  the  Church  of 
England  service  for  consecrating  a  bishop,  where  the 
person  being  made  a  bishop  is  exhorted  to  "be  to 
the  flock  of  Christ  a  shepherd,"  and,  in  the  same 
service,  the  lesson  from  the  twentieth  chapter  of 
Acts  contains  the  passage,  "  Take  heed  therefore  unto 
yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock,  over  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers,  to  feed  the  Church  of 
God."  "  The  flock  of  Christ "  was  the  Church.  What, 
therefore,  could  Mr.  Wesley  mean,  if  he  did  not  mean 
that  the  superintendent  was  to  preside  over  or  over- 
see a  Church  ? 

Doubtless  Mr.  Wesley  had  strong  reasons  for  set- 
ting apart  Dr.  Coke  in  the  manner  he  did,  but  it  is 
not  necessary  at  this  time  to  dwell  upon  the  details.1 

Mr.  Wesley  intended  not  only  that  his  followers 
in  America  should  have  an  ordained  ministry  and  a 
supervisional  government,  but  also  a  formulated  creed, 
and  so  he  provided  Articles  of  Religion.  These  Arti- 
cles were  taken  from  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England  ;  but  some  of  the  Anglican  Articles 
were  stricken  out,  and  parts  of  others  were  eliminated, 
so  that  the  Articles  he  prepared  for  the  American 
Methodists  numbered  only  twenty-four.2  It  follows, 

1  For  fuller  treatment  see  Evolution  of  Episcopacy  and  Organic 
Methodism,  by  Rev.  T.  B.  Neely,  PH.  D.,  D.  D.,  New  York,  18*8,  pp. 
213-229. 

'Wesley's  Sunday  Service  of  the  Methodists  In  North  America, 
London,  1784. 


230    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

therefore,  that  as  his  Twenty-four  Articles  differed 
from  the  Anglican  Thirty-nine,  Wesley  intended  the 
creed  of  the  American  Methodists  should  thus  differ 
from  that  of  the  Established  Church  of  England. 

Wesley  also  prepared  a  regular  Service-book  from 
the  English  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  This  was 
called  "  The  Sunday  Service  of  the  Methodists  in 
North  America,"  and  was  printed  in  London  in  1784, 
and  was  brought  to  America  by  Dr.  Coke.  This  Ser- 
vice-book had  morning  and  evening  prayers  for 
Sabbath  mornings  and  evenings,  and  a  Litany  which 
was  to  be  read  on  Wednesdays  and  Fridays.1 

It  also  contained  prayers  and  services  for  special 
occasions.  Of  these  the  most  important  were  the 
forms  of  service  for  sacramental  seasons,  and  the 
forms  of  service  for  setting  apart  and  ordaining  per- 
sons to  the  ministry. 

This  certainly  meant  that  Wesley  intended  Amer- 
ican Methodism  to  be  put  on  a  different  footing.  He 
appointed  superintendents  and  sent  three  ordained 
ministers.  That  he  did  not  mean  that  they  should  be 
the  only  ordained  ministers  is  manifest  from  the  fact 
that  he  furnished  them  with  services  to  be  used  in 
ordaining  others,  so  that  those  he  sent  were  to  be  but 
the  beginning  of  the  line  of  ordained  American 
Methodist  ministers. 

That  he  did  not  mean  this  should  be  a  temporary 
arrangement  is  proved  by  the  Liturgy,  by  the  forms 
for  the  sacramental  occasions,  and  by  the  Articles  of 


'S  PI<AN  FOR  REORGANIZATION.      233 

Religion  to  which  we  have  referred.  The  American 
Methodists  were  to  have  not  only  a  more  formal  gov- 
ernment, but  also  symbols  of  faith,  fixed  forms  for  the 
various  services,  with  their  own  ordained  clergy,  not 
only  to  preach  as  evangelists,  but  to  administer  the 
sacraments  as  pastors. 

What  could  this  mean  unless  it  meant  that  the 
Methodists  in  the  United  States  of  America  were  to 
become  a  Church  which  would  have  some  resemblance 
to  the  Church  of  England,  but  should  be  as  dif- 
frent  from  that  Church  as  the  new  Service-book 
was  different  from  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  on 
which  it  was  based,  but  from  which  it  differed 
in  a  number  of  vital  particulars  ?  What  could  it 
mean  but  that  while  it  had  a  system  of  oversight, 
it  should  be  a  Church  differing  from  the  modern 
Church  of  England  in  its  doctrine  of  episcopal  orders 
as  Wesley  did  in  his  views  which  he  formulated  in  the 
statement  "  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same 
order,  and  consequently  have  the  same  right  to  ordain  ?" 

But  let  Mr.  Wesley  speak  for  himself.  With  Dr. 
Coke,  he  sent  a  Circular  Letter  to  the  American  Meth- 
odists, and  a  careful  study  of  this  letter  will  reveal 
his  intention.  It  is  as  follows  : 

"  BRISTOL,  September  10,  1784. 

"To  DR.   COKE,  MR.  ABBURY,  and   our  Brethren  in  North 
America, — 

"  1.  By  a  very  uncommon  train  of  providences,  many 
of  the  provinces  of  North  America  are  totally  dis- 
joined from  their  mother  country,  and  erected  into  in- 
dependent States.  The  English  Government  has  no 


232  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

authority  over  them,  either  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  any 
more  than  over  the  States  of  Holland.  A  civil 
authority  is  exercised  over  them,  partly  by  the  Con- 
gress, partly  by  the  provincial  Assemblies;  but  no  one 
either  exercises  or  claims  any  ecclesiastical  authority  at 
all.  In  this  peculiar  situation,  some  thousands  of  the 
inhabitants  of  these  States  desire  my  advice ;  and  in 
compliance  with  their  desire,  I  have  drawn  up  a  little 
sketch. 

"  2.  Lord  King's  'Account  of  the  Primitive  Church ' 
convinced  me  many  years  ago  that  bishops  and  pres- 
byters are  the  same  order,  and,  consequently,  have  the 
same  right  to  ordain.  For  many  years  I  have  been 
importuned,  from  time  to  time,  to  exercise  this  right 
by  ordaining  part  of  our  traveling  preachers;  but  I 
have  still  refused,  not  only  for  peace's  sake  but  be- 
cause I  was  determined  as  little  as  possible  to  violate 
the  established  order  of  the  National  Church  to  which 
I  belonged. 

"  3.  But  the  case  is  widely  different  between  Eng- 
land and  North  America.  Here  there  are  bishops  who 
have  a  legal  jurisdiction;  in  America  there  are  none, 
neither  any  parish  ministers;  so  that  for  some  hundred 
miles  together  there  is  none  either  to  baptize  or  to  ad- 
minister the  Lord's  Supper.  Here,  therefore,  my  scru- 
ples are  at  an  end;  and  I  conceive  myself  at  full  lib- 
erty, as  I  violate  no  order  and  invade  no  man's  right 
by  appointing  and  sending  laborers/into  the  harvest. 

"  4.  I  have  accordingly  appointed  Dr.  Coke  and 
Mr.  Francis  Asbury  to  be  joint  superintendents  over 
our  brethren  in  North  America,  as  also  Ricluml 


WESLEY'S  PLAN  FOR  REORGANIZATION.      233 

Whatcoat  and  Thomas  Vasey  to  act  as  elders  among 
them,  by  baptizing  and  administering  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. And  I  have  prepared  a  liturgy  little  differing  from 
that  of  the  Church  of  England  (I  think  the  best  consti- 
tuted National  Church  in  the  world),  which  I  ad- 
vise all  the  traveling  preachers  to  use  on  the  Lord's- 
day,  in  all  the  congregations — reading  the  Litany 
only  on  Wednesdays  and  Fridays,  and  praying  ex- 
tempore on  all  other  days.  I  also  advise  the  elders 
to  administer  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  on  every 
Lord's-day. 

"  5.  If  any  one  will  point  out  a  more  rational  and 
Scriptural  way  of  feeding  and  guiding  those  poor 
sheep  in  the  wilderness,  I  will  gladly  embrace  it. 
At  present  I  can  not  see  any  better  method  than  that 
I  have  taken. 

"  6.  It  has,  indeed,  been  proposed  to  desire  the 
English  bishops  to  ordain  part  of  our  preachers  for 
America.  But  to  this  I  object:  (1)  I  desired  the 
Bishop  of  London  to  ordain  only  one,  but  could  not 
prevail.  (2)  If  they  consented,  we  know  the  slow- 
ness of  their  proceedings;  but  the  matter  admits  of 
no  delay.  (3)  If  they  would  ordain  them  now,  they 
would  likewise  expect  to  govern  them ;  and  how 
grievously  would  this  entangle  us!  (4)  As  our 
American  brethren  are  now  totally  disentangled  both 
from  the  State  and  from  the  English  hierarchy,  we 
dare  not  entangle  them  again  either  with  the  one  or 
the  other.  They  are  now  at  full  liberty  simply  to 
follow  the  Scriptures  and  the  primitive  Church ;  and 
we  judge  it  best  that  they  should  stand  fast  in  that 

16 


234   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

liberty  wherewith  God  has  so  strangely  made  them 
free.  JOHN  WESLEY."  l 

Wesley's  own  words  show  that  he  intended 
American  Methodism  to  be  separate  from  the  Church 
of  England  and  from  all  other  ecclesiastical  bodies 
in  the  United  States ;  that  the  American  Methodists 
should  have  their  own  ordained  clergy,  and  all  the 
privileges  and  ordinances  a  complete  Church  could 
give ;  that  they  should  differ  from  the  Church  of 
England  and  other  ecclesiastical  organizations  ac- 
cording to  the  peculiarities  of  the  polity,  the  doc- 
trines, and  the  services  he  had  given  them ;  and 
that  they  should  have  a  supervisory  government, 
with  superintendents  overseeing  the  work  and  pre- 
siding over  presbyters,  but  that  the  government 
should  be  on  a  presbyterial  basis,  with  a  superintend- 
ency  of  a  presbyterial  order. 

Wesley's  declaration  "  that  bishops  and  presby- 
ters are  the  same  order,  and  consequently  have  the 
same  right  to  ordain,"  was  not  only  in  harmony  with 
the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  but  also  was  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  give  consistency  to  his  course  in 
ordaining  ministers.  What  is  more,  it  became  the 
Dasal  principle  of  Methodist  polity  as  to  clerical  orders, 
so  that  Methodism  holds  there  is  no  higher  order 
than  that  of  the  presbyter,  and  considers  the  right  of 
ordination  as  vesting  in  the  presbyters;  and,  hence, 
that  a  bishop  is  simply  a  superintending  presbyter. 


i  Wwley's  Works,  Amer.  Ed.,  Vol.  VII,  pp.  311,  312 ;  Drewl  Life  of 
Dr.  (Joke.  New  York,  1847,  pp.  75,  78;  Tyerman's  Life  of  Wesley,  VoJL 
III,  pp.  435,  436. 


WESLEY'S  PLAN  FOR  REORGANIZATION.     235 

A  religious  body  with  all  these  arrangements  per- 
taining to  the  organization  and  work  of  a  Christian 
Church  could  be  nothing  less  than  a  Church.  So  Dr. 
Coke  observes  that  "  Mr.  Wesley,  after  long  delibera- 
tion, saw  it  his  duty  to  form  his  society  in  America 
into  an  independent  Church ;  but  he  loved  the  most 
excellent  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  he 
loved  its  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  therefore  adopted 
them  in  most  instances  for  the  present  case."  l 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Wesley  considered 
the  Church  of  England  as  no  longer  in  "the  Southern 
provinces  of  North  America,"  it  may  be  asked  whether 
he  did  not  intend  the  reorganized  American  Meth- 
odist body  to  be  the  real  successor  of  the  Anglican 
Church  in  the  United  States.  The  Liturgy,  the 
Articles  of  Religion,  and  the  various  forms  of  service 
appear  to  give  some  support  to  such  a  suggestion. 

However  that  may  be,  it  is  plain  that  he  intended 
American  Methodism  should  have  everything  essen- 
tial to  a  complete  Church,  and  that  its  members  should 
not  be  lacking  in  any  Church  privilege. 

In  these  arrangements  we  find  Wesley's  answer 
to  the  many  appeals  for  aid  that  had  come  time  and 
again  from  America. 

*  The  Rev.  Dr.  Coke's  Sermon  at  the  Consecration  of  Asbury. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OP  1784. 


Rev.  Dr.  Coke,  the  Rev.  Richard  Whatcoat, 
-L  and  the  Rev.  Thomas  Vasey,  having  been  duly 
commissioned  by  Mr.  Wesley,  the  head  of  American 
as  well  as  European  Methodism,  sailed  from  Bristol, 
England,  on  the  18th  of  September,  1784.1  Whatcoat 
and  Vasey  were  ordained  elders  on  the  1st  of  Sep- 
tember. On  the  2d  of  September  Dr.  Coke  was  "  set 
apart  as  a  superintendent."  The  preface  to  the  Ser- 
vice-book was  written  on  the  9th  of  September,  and 
the  circular  letter  was  written  on  the  10th  of  the 
same  month;  and  now,  on  the  18th,  the  three  men, 
chosen  by  Mr.  Wesley  to  inaugurate  a  new  era  in 
American  Methodism,  sail  for  the  port  of  New  York. 
Coke's  companions  are  worthy  of  more  than  a  pass- 
ing notice. 

Thomas  Vasey  was  left  an  orphan  at  an  early 
age,  but  was  cared  for  by  a  wealthy  and  childless 
uncle,  who  adopted  him  as  the  heir  to  his  property. 
The  nephew  experienced  conversion  among  the  Meth- 
odists, and  this  so  excited  the  indignation  of  the  uncle, 
who  was  a  rigid  Churchman,  that  he  threatened  to 
disinherit  the  nephew  if  he  joined  any  of  Wesley's 
societies.  Thomas  Vasey  was  not  moved  by  this 

>  Date  given  by  Coke  in  Extracts  from  Dr.  Coke's  Journal,  London, 
1793,  p.  7. 
236 


THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OF  1784.      237 

threat,  but  feeling  that  with  him  it  was  a  matter  of 
conscience,  he  sacrificed  his  present  comfort  and  pro- 
spective wealth,  and  became  not  only  a  member  of  one 
of  the  societies,  but  also  a  Methodist  itinerant.  He 
had  been  a  preacher  about  nine  years  when  Wesley's 
presbytery  ordained  him  an  elder. 

Richard  Whatcoat,  like  Thomas  Vasey,  was  born 
in  England.  At  the  time  of  his  ordination  he  had 
been  a  Wesleyan  preacher  fifteen  years,  having  entered 
the  Conference  in  1769,  the  very  year  Boardman 
and  Pilmoor,  Wesley's  first  missionaries,  started  for 
America. 

Dr.  Abel  Stevens  has  justly  said :  "  Richard  What- 
coat  was  one  of  the  saintliest  men  in  the  primitive 
itinerancy  of  Methodism.  Had  he  been  a  papist  he 
might  have  been  canonized."1  One  of  his  biogra- 
phers states  that  it  might  be  said  of  him  as  of  St. 
Basil,  "that  so  much  divine  majesty  and  luster  ap- 
peared in  him,  it  made  the  wicked  tremble  to  behold 
him."  Continuing,  he  declares:  "In  him  were  seen 
majesty  and  love.  His  whole  deportment  was  beauti- 
ful, and  adorned  with  personal  graces.  His  amiable, 
heavenly,  and  courteous  carriage  was  such  as  to  make 
him  the  delight  of  his  acquaintances.  He  was  a  man 
of  fortitude;  he  appeared  to  fear  no  danger  when 
duty  was  plain  (as  his  labors  and  troubles  showed), 
believing  that  he  who  walks  uprightly  walks  safely, 
though  he  pass  'through  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of 
death.'"1 


>  A.  Sievens,  History  of  Melhmlist  Episcopal  Church,  Vol.  II,  p  157. 
»Ur.  Phoebus's  Meins.  of  Blsliop  Wliatcoat,  New  York,  1828,  p.  68. 


238    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Such  were  the  two  presbyters  who  accompanied 
Dr.  Coke  on  the  mission  to  reorganize  the  Methodist 
societies  in  the  United  States. 

We  have  already  seen  that  Dr.  Coke  had  become 
a  sort  of  general  assistant  to  Wesley  in  England  and 
Ireland.  He  had  been  associated  with  Mr.  Wesley 
about  seven  years,  and  in  that  time  had  gained  great 
experience.  Mr.  Wesley  and  Dr.  Coke  alternated  iir 
annual  visits  to  the  societies  in  Ireland,  and  "  in  the 
year  1782  he  was  directed  by  Mr.  Wesley  to  convene 
cogether  the  Irish  preachers,  and  to  hold,  for  the  first 
time,  a  Conference  in  Dublin,  upon  the  same  prin- 
ciples that  the  Conferences  in  England  had  been  con- 
ducted. ...  As  the  Irish  were  so  well  satisfied 
with  his  conduct  as  president  of  their  Conference  that 
they  were  anxious  for  his  reappointment,  he  took  occa- 
sion in  several  succeeding  years  to  travel  over  as  many 
circuits  as  time  would  permit  him  to  visit,  in  order  to 
make  himself  fully  acquainted  with  the  state  of  relig- 
ion throughout  the  kingdom.  This  previous  knowl- 
edge, thus  acquired,  enabled  him  to  fill  his  station  in 
the  ensuing  assembly  with  more  confidence  in  himself, 
and  with  an  increasing  approbation  from  the  people. 
And  from  this  year,  1782,  until  he  prepared  to  visit 
India,  Dr.  Coke  almost  invariably  presided  in  the 
Irish  Conference;  thus  filling  the  presidential  chair 
with  honor,  approbation,  and  great  utility  for  nearly 
thirty  years." l 

At  this  time,  however,  we  are  especially  interested 

» Samuel  Drew,  Life  of  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D.,  New  York,  Ed. 
347,  pp.  49-51. 


THB  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OP  1784.     239 

in  Dr.  Coke's  mission  to  America.  Wesleyan  Meth- 
odism was  introduced  into  New  York  by  a  German 
Palatine  from  Ireland ;  into  Maryland  by  an  Irishman; 
and  into  Philadelphia  and  other  places  by  a  British 
officer.  Wesley's  first  missionaries  to  America  were 
English;  the  one  who  organized  the  Annual  Confer- 
ence was  a  Scotchman;  and  now  Wesley  sends  Dr. 
Coke,  a  Welshman,  to  reorganize  the  work  in  Amer- 
ica, and  give  it  a  different  and  more  dignified  status. 
Thus  every  part  of  the  insular  empire  has  had  its  rep- 
resentative in  this  mission. 

After  a  voyage  of  forty-seven  days,  Coke  and  his 
two  associates  landed  at  New  York  on  the  3d  of 
November,  1784.1 

Drew,  in  his  life  of  Dr.  Coke,  states  that,  "  arriv- 
ing at  New  York  in  perfect  health,  the  first  care  of  Dr. 
Coke,  after  taking  an  affectionate  leave  of  the  captain 
and  his  companions  on  board,  was  to  find  out  the  Meth- 
odist preaching-house.  In  this  inquiry  he  was  assisted 
by  a  gentleman  who,  although  he  had  no  connection 
with  the  Methodists,  conducted  him  to  the  house  of  a 
Mr.  Sands,  where  he  took  up  his  abode,  and  found  him- 
self in  a  region  of  hospitality  and  friendship."2  His 
host  was  Mr.  Stephen  Sands,  an  influential  member 
and  trustee  of  the  John  Street  Church.8 

Drew  says :  "  The  intelligence  of  his  arrival  soon 
brought  to  the  house  the  traveling  preacher  stationed 
in  that  city.  To  him  Dr.  Coke  unfolded  the  plan 


>  Samuel  Drew,  Life  of  Dr.  Coke,  N.  Y.,  Ed.  1847,  p.  96.       « Id.,  p.  97. 
•A.  Stevens,  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,   1865,  Vol. 
II,  p.  170. 


240    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

which  Mr.  Wesley  had  adopted  for  the  regulation 
and  government  of  his  societies  in  America.  And 
it  was  no  small  consolation  to  him  to  learn  that  the 
plan  met  his  entire  approbation;  and  so  confident 
was  he  of  Mr.  Asbury's  concurrence,  that  he  advised 
him  immediately  to  make  it  public  throughout  all  the 
societies,  being  fully  assured  that  the  name  of  Mr. 
Wesley  would  impart  a  degree  of  sanction  to  the 
measure  which  would  disarm  resistance,  even  if  any 
were  to  be  apprehended." l 

This  preacher  was  John  Dickins,  who,  at  that 
time  was  stationed  in  New  York.  He  was  a  member 
of  the  Virginia  Conference  when  it  decided  to  author- 
ize some  of  its  preachers  to  administer  the  sacra- 
ments. He  favored  that  course  then,  and  now  gladly 
hails  the  coming  of  an  ordained  ministry  having  the 
sanction  of  Mr.  Wesley. 

Dr.  Coke  mentions  his  interview  with  Dickins. 
The  entry  in  his  journal  was  made  on  the  very  day 
of  his  arrival  in  America.  He  says :  "  I  have  opened 
Mr.  Wesley's  plan  to  Brother  Dickins,  the  traveling 
preacher^stationed  at  this  place  (New  York),  and  he 
highly  approves  of  it ;  says  that  all  the  preachers 
most  earnestly  long  for  such  a  regulation,  and  that 
Mr.  Asbury,  he  is  sure,  will  agree  to  it.  He  presses 
me  earnestly  to  make  it  public,  because,  as  he  most 
justly  argues,  Mr.  Wesley  has  determined  the  point, 
and,  therefore,  it  is  not  to  be  investigated  but  com- 
plied with."' 

1  Samuel  Drew,  Life  of  Dr.  Coke,  New  York,  Ed.  1847,  p.  87. 
•Dr.  Coke's  Journal,  Novembers,  1784. 


THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OF  1784.    241 

Reasoning  from  accepted  principles,  this  was  cer- 
tainly most  logical.  The  American  Methodists  had 
recognized  Mr.  Wesley  as  their  chief,  and  had  agreed 
to  obey  his  authority.  His  power  was  supreme  among 
the  Methodists  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  and  on 
the  theory  constantly  advanced  by  Asbury  and  held 
by  the  Conference  generally,  it  was  not  for  them  to 
question  what  Wesley  did,  but  to  obey  his  com- 
mands and  to  follow  his  suggestions.  Consistency 
would  compel  Asbury  and  his  followers  to  accept 
Wesley's  arrangement  the  moment  it  was  made  known. 
Under  their  theory  it  was  not  necessary  that  all  or 
any  of  them  should  be  consulted,  but  simply  that 
they  be  informed. 

The  logic  of  John  Dickins  was  sound,  but  the 
course  suggested  would  not  have  been  wise.  There- 
fore, "  that  nothing  might  be  done  precipitately,  Dr. 
Coke  declined  carrying  the  advice  into  execution 
until  he  had  seen  Mr.  Asbury,  to  whom  he  had  a 
particular  message,  although  they  were  personally 
unknown  to  each  other,  that  they  might  act  in  con- 
cert and  take  no  step  that  should  not  be  the  result  of 
calm  deliberation."  l 

That  Dr.  Coke  was  to  be  sent  to  America  seems 
to  have  been  announced  prior  to  his  coming;  for  he 
remarks:  "By  some  means  or  other  the  whole 
country  has  been,  as  it  were,  expecting,  and  Mr. 
Asbury  looking  out  for  me  for  some  time." 

Having  preached  a  few  times  in  New  York,  Dr. 
Coke,  without  further  delay,  starts  southward  in 

,  Life  of  Dr.  Coke,  New  York,  Ed.  1847,  pp.  97,  98. 


242    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

search  of  Mr.  Asbury.  Three  days  after  his  landing 
iu  the  new  country  Dr.  Coke  reached  Philadelphia, 
and,  after  a  few  days,  went  into  the  State  of  Delaware 
In  some  way  he  appears  to  have  obtained  information 
as  to  Asbury's  itinerary,  for  he  moves  as  directly 
toward  him  as  if  he  knew  that  on  a  certain  day 
Asbury  would  be  in  a  certain  place. 

Freeborn  Garrettson  tells  us  that:  "In  August 
1784,  I  received  a  letter  from  Brother  F.  A.  [Francis 
Asbury]  in  which  I  was  desired  to  prepare  for  a 
journey  to  Charleston  as  quick  as  possible.  At  that 
time  I  was  traveling  in  Talbot  Circuit,  and  had  great 
freedom  among  the  people.  ...  I  went  as  far  as 
Dover,  and  intended  to  stay  at  R.  B.'s,  Esq.  [Richard 
Bassett],  a  few  days.  The  evening  following  a  friend 
came  to  my  room,  and  informed  me  that  Dr.  Coke 
had  arrived  and  was  below.  I  went  down,  and  re- 
ceived him  and  Brother  W.  [Whatcoat]  as  welcome 
messengers." l 

Richard  Bassett  was  not  only  a  prominent  Method- 
ist, but  he  was  also  one  of  the  distinguished  citizens 
of  the  State  of  Delaware.  In  1787  he  was  a  member 
of  the  Convention  that  framed  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  Subsequently  he  was  a  member  of 
the  United  States  Congress  and  Governor  of  the  State 
of  Delaware,  and  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life  he  was 
Judge  of  the  United  States  District  Court.  It  was  to 
the  house  of  this  honored  man,  then  a  member  of 
the  Executive  Council  of  the  State,  that  Dr.  Coke 
and  the  Rev.  Richard  Whatcoat  Nime  on  Saturday, 

i  Garrettsou's  Autobiography,  p.  197. 


THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OP  1784.    243 

the  13th  of  November,  1784;  and  it  is  remarkable 
that  in  this  very  house  in  Dover,  Delaware,  Whatcoat 
died  in  1806. 

On  the  very  day  of  their  arrival  it  would  appear 
that  a  quarterly  meeting  was  in  progress  at  Barratt's 
Chapel ;  for  at  that  time  the  quarterly  meetings, 
wherever  practicable,  began  on  Saturday  and  con- 
tinued the  following  Sunday. 

Barratt's  Chapel,  which  was  situated  near  Freder- 
ica,  Delaware,  had  been  built  by  Judge  Philip  Bar- 
ratt,  another  prominent  layman  of  early  Methodism  in 
Delaware.  When  the  chapel  was  in  course  of  erection, 
in  1780,  a  gentleman  asked  what  it  was  for.  On  being 
told  that  it  was  to  be  a  place  of  worship  for  the 
Methodists,  he  exclaimed:  "It  is  unnecessary  to  build 
such  a  house,  for  by  the  time  the  war  is  over  a  corn- 
crib  will  hold  them  all."  However,  he  did  not  prove 
to  be  a  true  prophet,  for  in  the  four  years  from  1780 
to  1784  the  Methodists  almost  doubled  their  numbers. 
In  the  former  year  they  had  42  preachers  and  8,504 
members,  while  in  the  latter  year  they  had  83  preach- 
ers and  14,988  members.1  What  would  he  now  say 
if  he  knew  of  the  millions  of  Methodists  in  the 
United  States  to-day? 

Freeborn  Garrettson,  who  happened  to  be  at  Judge 
Bassett's,  became  the  guide  to  conduct  Dr.  Coke  and 
Mr.  Whatcoat  to  the  quarterly  meeting  at  Barratt's 
Chapel.  He  states  that  he  "accompanied  them  the 
next  day  [after  their  arrival  at  Dover]  to  a  quarterly 
meeting  held  at  Barratt's  Chapel.  Dear  Mr.  Wesley 

»  Printed  Minute*,  177S-1813,  pp.  27,  48. 


244    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

had  gratified  the  desires  of  thousands  of  his  friends 
in  America  in  sending  a  power  of  ordination  and  giv- 
ing his  consent  to  our  becoming  a  separate  Church." ' 

This  was  Sunday,  November  14,  1784.  The  cir- 
cumstances lead  us  to  infer  that  Dr.  Coke  had  been 
informed  that  Mr.  Asbury  was  expected  at  this  quar- 
terly meeting,  and  that  he  had  moved  so  quickly 
from  New  York  in  order  that  he  might  have  an  in- 
terview with  the  other  man  who  had  been  selected  by 
Mr.  Wesley  to  serve  as  superintendent  of  the  reor- 
ganized Methodism  in  America.  Dr.  Coke  has  left  a 
brief  account  of  his  visit  to  Barratt's  Chapel,  which 
he  says  was  "so-called  from  the  name  of  our  friend 
who  built  it,  and  who  went  to  heaven  a  few  days 
ago."  "  In  this  chapel,"  he  adds,  "  in  the  midst  of 
a  forest,  I  had  a  noble  congregation,  to  whom  I  en- 
deavored to  set  forth  the  Redeemer  as  our  wisdom, 
righteousness,  sanctification,  and  redemption.  After 
the  sermon,  a  plain,  robust  man  came  up  to  me  in  the 
pulpit  and  kissed  me.  I  thought  it  could  be  no  other 
than  Mr.  Asbury,  and  I  was  not  deceived.  I  admin- 
istered the  sacrament,  after  preaching,  to  five  or  six 
hundred  communicants,  and  held  love-feast.  It  was 
the  best  season  I  ever  knew,  except  one  at  Charle- 
mont  in  Ireland." 

Though  Coke  probably  knew  that  Asbury  was 
expected  at  that  quarterly  meeting,  it  appears  that 
Asbury  did  not  know  of  Coke's  presence  until  he 
arrived  at  the  chapel,  yet  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that  Asbury  expected  to  meet  Coke  in  that  locality. 

1  Garrettson's  Autobiography,  p.  197. 


THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OP  1784.    245 

Asbury  says:  "Sunday  15th  [14th]  I  came  to  Bar- 
ratt's  Chapel.  Here,  to  my  great  joy,  I  met  these 
dear  men  of  God,  Dr.  Coke  and  Richard  Whatcoat. 
We  were  greatly  comforted  together.  The  Doctor 
preached  on  '  Christ  Our  Wisdom,  Righteousness, 
Sanctification,  and  Redemption.'  Having  had  no  op- 
portunity of  conversing  with  them  before  public 
worship,  I  was  greatly  surprised  to  see  Brother 
Whatcoat  assist  by  taking  the  cup  in  the  administra- 
tion of  the  sacrament."1 

The  Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper,  who  was  present  when 
Coke  and  Asbury  met  for  the  first  time,  gives  the 
following  account  of  that  event:  "Dr.  Coke  and 
Whatcoat,  leaving  Vasey  behind,  hastened  on  to 
the  South  with  all  expedition.  On  the  14th  of  the 
same  month,  November,  they  met  Mr.  Asbury  and 
about  fifteen  of  the  American  preachers  at  a  quarterly 
meeting  held  in  Barratt's  Chapel,  Kent  County,  State 
of  Delaware.  I  was  then  a  witness  with  my  eyes, 
my  ears,  and  my  heart,  of  one  of  the  most  solemn, 
interesting,  and  affectionate  meetings.  It  was  in  full 
view  of  a  large  concourse  of  people — a  crowded  con- 
gregation, assembled  for  public  worship.  While  Dr. 
Coke  was  preaching,  Mr.  Asbury  came  into  the  con- 
gregation. A  solemn  pause  and  deep  silence  took 
place  at  the  close  of  the  sermon,  as  an  interval  for 
introduction  and  salutation.  Asbury  and  Coke,  with 
great  solemnity  and  much  dignified  sensibility,  and 
with  full  hearts  of  brotherly  love,  approached,  -em- 
braced, and  saluted  each  other.  The  other  preachers, 

»  Asbury '8  Journal,  1821.  Vol.  I,  p.  878. 


246    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

at  the  same  time  participating  in  the  tender  sensibil- 
ities  of  the  affectionate  salutations,  were  melted  into 
sweet  sympathy  and  tears.  The  congregation  also 
caught  the  glowing  emotion,  and  the  whole  assembly, 
as  if  divinely  struck  with  a  shock  of  heavenly  elec- 
tricity, burst  into  a  flood  of  tears.  Every  heart  ap- 
peared as  if  filled  and  overflowing  with  love,  unity, 
and  fellowship;  and  a  kind  of  ecstasy,  or  rapture,  oi 
joy  and  gladness  ensued.  I  can  never  forget  the  af- 
fecting scene.  The  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  administered  by  the  Doctor  and  Mr.  Whatcoat  to 
several  hundreds,  and  it  was  a  blessed  season  to  many 
souls,  while  in  the  holy  ordinance  they  through  faith 
discerned  the  Lord's  body,  and  shewed  forth  his  death, 
and  were  feasting  on  him  in  their  souls  by  faith  with 
thanksgiving.  It  is  the  more  impressive  on  my  mind 
and  affecting  to  my  recollection ;  for  at  that  meeting 
was  the  first  time  I  ever  partook  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, and  the  first  time  that  that  ordinance  was  ever 
administered  among  the  Methodists  in  this  country 
by  their  own  regularly  ordained  preachers." l 

This  was,  indeed,  the  opening  of  a  new  era  for  the 
American  Methodists.  Now,  with  the  approval  of 
Mr.  Wesley,  they  had  the  sacraments  from  their  own 
ministers.  The  letter  sent  to  him  in  1780,  calling  his 
attention  to  the  fact  that  they  were  destitute  of  the 
sacraments,  had  at  last  been  answered  by  that  which 
would  meet  the  demand.  Part  of  Wesley's  plan  was 
now  in  actual  operation. 

The  same  day  Dr.  Coke  presented  to  Asbury  the 

>  Cooper  011  Asbury.  Phila.,  1819,  pp.  104-103. 


THE  OK.V>ANIZING  CONFERENCE  OP  1784.    247 

details  of  the  new  arrangement.  Dr.  Coke  says: 
"  After  dining,  in  company  with  eleven  of  the  preach- 
ers, at  our  Sister  Barratt's,  about  a  mile  from  the 
chapel,  I  privately  opened  our  plan  to  Mr.  Asbury. 
He  expressed  considerable  doubts  concerning  it,  which 
I  rather  applauded  than  otherwise,  but  informed  me 
that  he  had  received  some  intimations  of  my  arrival 
on  the  continent;  and  as  he  thought  it  probable  I 
might  meet  him  on  that  day,  and  have  something  of 
importance  to  communicate  to  him  from  Mr.  Wesley, 
he  had  therefore  called  together  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  preachers  to  form  a  council,  and  if  they  were 
of  opinion  that  it  would  be  expedient  immediately 
to  call  a  conference,  it  should  be  done/' l 

This  shows  that  Asbury  was  expecting  to  meet  Dr. 
Coke  in  this  locality,  and  about  this  time.  It  also 
reveals  Asbury's  foresight  in  calling  so  many  preach- 
ers to  that  point  at  that  time,  that  he  might  be  forti- 
fied by  their  opinions.  It  was  an  astute  move  for 
himself  personally,  and  a  wise  move  in  the  interest  of 
all  concerned. 

Asbury  says:  "  I  was  shocked  when  first  informed 
of  the  intention  of  these  my  brethren  in  coming  to 
this  country.  It  may  be  of  God.  My  answer  then 
was,  if  the  preachers  unanimously  choose  me;  I  shall 
not  act  in  the  capacity  1  have  hitherto  done  by  Mr. 
Wesley's  appointment."2 

Mr.  Asbury  had  constantly  impressed  the  Amer- 
ican preachers  and  people  with  the  idea  that  Mr. 

i  Coke's  Journal,  in  Artnlnlan  Magazine,  Pbila.,  1789,  pp.  243,  244. 
•Asbury 's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  87ft. 


248    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Wesley  was  supreme  in  Methodist  affairs,  and  that 
they  must  be  in  complete  subjection  to  him.  Indeed, 
Asbury's  authority,  as  the  head  of  American  Meth- 
odism, was  based  on  the  fact  that  once  he  had  been 
appointed  assistant  by  Mr.  Wesley.  Until  the  arrival 
of  Dr.  Coke  he  had  been  the  absolute  ruler  in  Amer- 
ica. Now  Wesley's  plan  was  that  Dr.  Coke  should 
share  this  power  with  Mr.  Asbury. 

Prior  to  this,  Mr.  Asbury  appears  to  have  had 
some  apprehensions.  Years  before,  Wesley  had  re- 
called others  to  England,  and  he  had  even  ordered 
Asbury  to  return.  What  Wesley  might  do  later  he 
did  not  know.  On  his  own  theory  Wesley  had  a 
right  to  recall  him  or  to  put  another  in  his  place. 
Circumstances  which  were  very  marked  indicate,  how- 
ever, that  Mr.  Asbury  had  no  thought  of  relinquish- 
ing the  authority  he  swayed  over  preachers  who  were 
generally,  if  not  in  all  cases,  his  juniors.  Others, 
doubtless,  wanted  to  retain  the  services  of  Mr.  As- 
bury. Thus,  on  the  24th  of  May,  1783,  Edward 
Dromgoole,  who  aided  Asbury  at  the  Virginia  Con- 
ference, wrote  to  Mr.  Wesley  as  follows: 

"The  preachers  at  present  are  united  to  Mr. 
Asbury,  and  esteem  him  very  highly  in  love  for  his 
work's  sake,  and  earnestly  desire  his  continuance  on 
the  continent  during  his  natural  life,  and  to  act  as 
he  does  at  present ;  to  wit,  to  superintend  the  whole 
work  and  go  through  all  the  circuits  once  a  year. 
He  is  now  well  acquainted  with  the  country,  with  the 
preachers  and  people,  and  has  a  large  share  in  the 


THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OP  1784.     249 

affections   of  both;   therefore  they  would   not  will- 
ingly part  with  him."  * 

Asbury  himself  wrote  Wesley,  on  the  20th  of 
September,  1783,  suggesting  his  willingness  to  con- 
tinue in  his  position  as  head  of  the  Methodists  in 
America.  In  this  letter  Asbury  says: 

"  No  person  can  manage  the  lay  preachers  here 
so  well,  it  is  thought,  as  one  that  has  been  at  the 
raising  of  most  of  them.  No  man  can  make  a  proper 
change  upon  paper  to  send  one  here  and  another 
[there],  without  knowing  the  circuits  and  the  gifts  of 
all  the  preachers,  unless  he  is  always  out  among 
them.  My  dear  sir,  a  matter  of  the  greatest  conse- 
quence now  lies  before  you.  If  you  send  preachers 
to  America,  let  them  be  proper  persons.  We  are 
now  united;  all  things  go  on  well  considering  the 
storms  and  difficulties  we  have  had  to  ride  through. 
I  wish  men  of  the  greatest  understanding  would  write 
impartial  accounts,  for  it  would  be  better  for  us  not 
to  have  preachers  than  to  be  divided.  This  I  know; 
great  men  that  can  do  good  may  do  hurt  if  they 
should  take  the  wrong  road.  I  have  labored  and 
suffered  much  to  keep  the  people  and  preachers  to- 
gether ;  and  if  I  am  thought  worthy  to  keep  my  place 
I  should  be  willing  to  labor  and  suffer  till  death  for 
peace  and  union."2 

Six  months  later  Asbury  wrote  Wesley:    "You 


lArmlnlan  Magazine.  1791. 

*J.  Atkinson,  D.  D.,  Centennial  History  of  American  Methodism, 
New  York,  1884,  pp.  72,78* 

17 


250    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

know,  sir,  it  is  not  easy  to  rule,  nor  am  I  pleased  with 
it ;  I  bear  it  as  my  cross,  yet  it  seems  that  a  necessity 
is  laid  upon  me." l 

It  is  evident  that  Asbury  was  unwilling  to  be  re- 
moved from  his  position  of  power,  and  there  is  some 
evidence  to  prove  that  he  was  not  anxious  to  have 
any  one  sent  from  England  to  share  his  power.  So 
Dr.  Coke,  on  the  9th  of  August,  1784,  wrote  to  Mr. 
Wesley  a  letter  which  contains  the  following  state- 
ment :  "  Mr.  Brackenbury  informed  me  at  Leeds 
that  he  saw  a  letter  from  Mr.  Asbury,  in  which  he 
observed  that  he  would  not  receive  any  person  de- 
puted by  you  with  any  part  of  the  superintendency  of 
the  work  invested  in  him,  or  words  which  evi- 
dently implied  so  much."2  This  asserted  fact  Coke 
uses  as  a  reason  why  Wesley  should  set  him  apart 
to  the  work  of  his  office  with  some  special  cere- 
mony, so  that  his  authority)  would  be  more  freely 
received  in  America.3 

It  was  somewhat  singular,  as  already  suggested, 
that  Asbury  would  object  to  accepting  the  position 
of  superintendent  solely  on  Wesley's  appointment. 
Heretofore  he  had  insisted  that  Wesley  was  the  su- 
preme authority,  and  that  preachers  and  people  were 
bound  to  obey  him  when  he  pronounced  a  decision. 
Yet  when  Mr.  Wesley  appoints  him  superintendent 


>  J.  Atkinson,  D.  D ,  Centennial  History  of  American  Methodism, 
New  York,  1884,  pp.  72,  73. 

•  Whiteliead's  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  II,  p.  417;  Tyerman'i  Life  of 
Wesley,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  429. 

*T.  B.  Ncely,  Evolution  of  Episcopacy  and  Organic  Methodism, 
New  York,  1884,  pp.  210,  218. 


THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OF  1784.     251 

he  wants  the  matter  submitted  to  the  Conference,  and 
asks  the  vote  of  the  Conference. 

There  was  manifestly  a  little  inconsistency  on  the 
part  of  Asbury ;  but  it  was  one  of  those  inconsisten- 
cies that  bring  good  results. 

However,  in  submitting  his  snperintendency  to 
the  vote  of  the  Conference,  Asbury  took  no  risk;  for 
he  had  been  at  least  twice  selected  by  the  preachers  to 
superintend  the  work,  and  nearly  all  the  preachers  in 
the  body  had  been  brought  into  the  Conference  under 
him.  There  was,  therefore,  no  doubt  as  to  the  action 
of  the  Conference.  It  was  a  moral  certainty  that  the 
body  would  elect  him  superintendent,  and  certainly 
in  preference  to  a  stranger  who  had  just  come 
across  the  sea. 

Asbury  took  no  personal  risk  in  the  submis- 
sion, but,  on  the  contrary,  by  the  submission  made  his 
position  more  secure.  The  preachers  knew  him,  many 
of  them  were  devoted  to  him,  and  he  had  proved  his 
devotion  to  American  Methodism  by  refusing  to 
return  to  England  and  by  remaining  in  America 
throughout  the  war. 

By  submitting  the  question  to  the  Conference, 
Asbury  broke  Wesley's  complete  control  over  the  af- 
fairs of  American  Methodism.  It  was  equivalent  to 
saying  that  Wesley  should  no  longer  have  exclusive 
authority,  but  that  there  was  a  new  factor — namely, 
the  American  Conference — to  be  considered.  If  the 
idea  was  carried  out,  it  would  become  a  settled  prin- 
ciple that  Wesley  could  neither  appoint  nor  remove  a 
superintendent  at  his  pleasure.  By  this  Asbury 


252    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

strengthened  himself,  and,  as  far  as  Wesley  was  cor- 
cerned,  seated  himself  more  securely  in  his  position, 
though  he  placed  himself  at  the  mercy  and  under  the 
control  of  the  Conference.  If  this  plan  was  fol- 
lowed, Asbury  would  be  practically  independent  of 
Wesley. 

The  suggestion  conceded  power  to  the  Conference 
such  as  it  never  possessed  before,  and,  whatever  may 
be  thought  of  his  motive,  the  Church  owes  much  to 
Asbury  for  this  act.  Even  if  his  purpose  was  to 
strengthen  his  own  personal  power,  its  effect  was  the 
destruction  of  supreme  personal  government  on  the 
part  of  Wesley,  Coke,  Asbury,  or  any  other  indi- 
vidual. It  destroyed  personal  government  and  placed 
the  governing  power  in  the  Conference. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  Mr.  Wesley  intended 
that  the  matter  should  be  submitted  to  the  Confer- 
ence, and,  possibly,  Dr.  Coke  expected  that  he  and 
Mr.  Asbury,  acting  jointly,  would  govern  the  Meth- 
odists in  the  United  States,  as  Mr.  Wesley  did  those 
in  the  British  realm,  or  at  least  that  they  would  rule 
under  his  general  direction,  without  submitting  any- 
thing to  the  decision  of  the  American  Conference. 

Mr.  Asbury,  however,  destroyed  this  vision  of 
power,  based  merely  on  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment, 
and  inaugurated  a  new  era  by  refusing  to  act  as 
superintendent  simply  under  appointment  by  the 
Rev.  John  Wesley. 

When  Asbury  exclaimed,  as  Thomas  Ware  de- 
clares he  did,  after  Dr.  Coke  had  shown  him  his  cre- 
dentials, "  Doctor,  we  will  call  the  preachers  together, 


THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OF  1784.     253 

and  the  voice  of  the  preachers  shall  be  to  me  the 
voice  of  God," '  he  struck  the  knell  of  personal  gov- 
ernment, and  rung  in  the  era  of  government  by  the 
Conference. 

Referring  to  Asbury's  determination,  the  Rev. 
Nicholas  Snethen,  one  of  the  early  Methodist  minis- 
ters, says:  "  Asbury  in  securing  to  the  General  Con- 
ference the  election  of  the  bishops,  by  declining  to 
serve  under  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment  until  he  was 
elected  by  the  American  preachers,  subserved  the 
cause  of  independence."3 

After  Dr.  Coke  heard  Asbury 's  proposition  to 
submit  the  matter  to  a  conference  of  the  preachers, 
those  whom  Mr.  Asbury  had  concentrated  at  that 
point  were  called  together  for  consultation. 

Mr.  Garrettson  says :  "  About  fifteen  preachers 
were  present."3 

Dr.  Coke  tells  us :  "  They  were  accordingly 
called,  and,  after  debate,  were  unanimously  of 
opinion  that  it  would  be  best  immediately  to  call  a 
Conference  of  all  the  preachers  on  the  continent."4 

Asbury  says:  "The  design  o3f  organizing  the 
Methodists  into  an  Independent  Episcopal  Church 
was  opened  to  the  preachers  present,  and  it  was 
agreed  to  call  a  General  Conference  to  meet  at  Balti- 
more the  ensuing  Christmas;  as  also  that  Brother 
Garrettsou  go  off  to  Virginia  to  give  notice  thereof 

» Thomas  Ware's  Autobiography,  New  York,  1840,  p.  102;  Rev. 
Thomas  Ware  in  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  Vol.  XIV,  1832. 

•Snethen 's  Sermon  in  the  Christian  World,  1841. 

•  Garretison's  Autobiography,  p.  198. 

H'uke's  Journal  In  Armiuian  Magazine,  Philadelphia,  1789,  pp. 
243,  244. 


254    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

to  our  brethren  in  the  South." '  This  "  Council,"  as 
Coke  termed  it,  in  agreeing  that  a  General  Confer- 
ence, or  a  Conference  of  the  preachers  in  general, 
should  be  called,  practically  agreed  that  personal 
government  should  give  way  to  Conference  gov- 
ernment, or,  in  other  words,  Coke,  Asbury,  and 
the  council  of  preachers  affirmed  the  principle  that 
the  supreme  governing  power  was  not  and  should 
not  be  in  Asbury,  Coke,  or  Wesley,  but  in  the  Con- 
ference of  American  preachers.  So  Garrettson  and 
others  flew  over  the  country  with  the  call  for  the 
Conference. 

Coke  says :  "  We  therefore  sent  off  Freeborn  Gar- 
rettson like  an  arrow  from  North  to  South,  directing 
him  to  send  messengers  to  the  right  and  left,  and  to 
gather  all  the  preachers  together  at  Baltimore  on 
Christmas  eve.  Mr.  Asbury  has  also  drawn  up  for 
me  a  route  of  about  a  thousand  miles  in  the  meantime. 
He  has  given  me  his  black  (Harry  by  name),  and  bor- 
rowed an  excellent  horse  for  me.  I  exceedingly  rev- 
erence Mr.  Asbury ;  he  has  so  much  wisdom  and  con- 
sideration, so  much  meekness  and  love;  and  under  all 
this,  though  hardly  to  be  perceived,  so  much  command 
and  authority.  He  and  I  have  agreed  to  use  our  joint 
endeavors  to  establish  a  school  or  college.  I  baptized 
here  thirty  or  forty  infanta,  and  seven  adults.  We 
had,  indeed,  a  precious  time  at  the  baptism  of  the 
adults."3 


1  Asbury's  Journal,  New  York,  1821,  p.  876. 

«Dr.  Coke's  Journal,  London,  1793;    Dr.  A.  Stevens,    History  of 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  N.  Y.,  1865,  pp.  171, 172. 


THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OF  1784.    255 

The  latter  remark  illustrates  the  destitute  condi- 
tion of  the  people  as  to  the  sacraments.  Garrettson, 
Coke's  arrow,  gives  the  following  account :  "  It  was 
eoncluded  that  I  should  go  through  the  continent, 
and  call  a  Conference  at  Baltimore  immediately. 
Within  six  weeks,  after  traveling  upwards  of  twelve 
hundred  miles,  I  settled  the  business,  besides  preach- 
ing almost  every  day  once,  and  sometimes  twice; 
and  made  my  return."1  The  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  the 
author  of  the  first  "  History  of  the  Methodists  in  the 
United  States  of  America,"  who  appears  to  have  been 
missed  by  this  "arrow,"  and  was  not  present  when 
the  Conference  convened,  makes  this  comment  upon 
Garrettson's  mission : 

"  Mr.  Freeborn  Garrettson  undertook  to  travel  to 
the  South,  in  order  to  give  notice  to  all  the  traveling 
preachers  of  this  intended  meeting;  but,  being  fond 
of  preaching  by  the  way,  and  thinking  he  could  do 
the  business  by  writing,  he  did  not  give  timely  notice 
to  the  preachers  who  were  in  the  extremities  of  the 
work,  and,  of  course,  several  of  them  were  not  at  that 
Conference."  2 

It  would,  however,  have  been  surprising  had  no 
one  failed  to  receive  the  notification.  There  weie 
no  railroads,  there  were  no  telegraphs ;  mail  facilities 
were  very  poor,  and  the  preachers  were  scattered 
over  extensive  circuits,  which,  in  many  instances,  re- 
auired  even  weeks  to  make  the  circuit  of  their  work. 


i  Garrettsou's  Autobiography ;  The  Experience  and  Travels  ol  Mr. 
Freeboin  Qarrettson,  Philadelphia,  1701,  p.  198. 

*  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  pp.  93,  94. 


256    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Lee  in  that  year  was  located  at  Salisbury  in  the 
western  part  ofNorth  Carolina,1  and,  it  seems,  the  notice 
did  not  reach  him  in  time.  Dr.  Leroy  M.  Lee  says: 
"On  the  12th  of  December  Mr.  Lee  received  official 
notice,  informing  him  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Coke,  ac- 
companied by  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Whatcoat  and  Vasey, 
had  arrived  in  America,  delegated  with  authority  from 
Mr.  Wesley  to  erect  the  societies  into  an  independent 
ecclesiastical  organization,  under  a  form  of  govern- 
ment the  outlines  of  which  had  been  supplied  by  Mr. 
Wesley  himself.  This  notice  was  received  only  thir- 
teen days  before  the  Conference  was  to  assemble,  and 
he  was  in  delicate  health,  and  five  hundred  miles 
from  the  place  appointed  for  its  session ;  and,  withal, 
it  was  a  period  of  the  year  that  forbade  the  thought 
of  attempting  the  journey.  He  very  wisely,  therefore, 
resolved  to  remain  on  his  circuit,  and  gave  himself  to 
such  employment  for  the  good  of  souls  as  the  state 
of  his  health  and  the  season  of  the  year  would  allow 
him  to  engage  in."2  If,  however,  Mr.  Lee  at  such 
a  remote  point  received  an  "official  notice,"  it  is 
likely  that  very  few  failed  to  receive  the  notification 

Asbury's  journal  furnishes  some  points  of  interest 
as  to  the  interval  between  the  Barratt's  Chapel  meet- 
ing and  the  session  of  the  especially  called  Confer- 
ence. The  brief  notes,  though  in  a  very  condensed 
form,  are  exceedingly  suggestive.  Thus  he  writes: 

"Delaware.  I  was  very  desirous  that  the  Doctor 
should  go  upon  the  track  I  had  just  been  over,  which 

i  Minutes,  1784 ;  Lee's  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  p.  125. 

*Rev.  Leroy  M.  Lee,  D.  D.,  Life  of  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  1860,  p.  129. 


THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OF  1784.    257 

he  accordingly  did.     I  came  to  Dover,  and  preached 
on  Eph.  v,  6.     Was  close  and,  I  hope,  profitable. 

"  Maryland.  Tuesday  16th  (Nov.)  Rode  to  Bo- 
hemia, where  I  met  with  Mr.  Thomas  Vasey,  who 
came  over  with  the  Doctor  and  R.  Whatcoat.  My 
soul  is  deeply  engaged  with  God,  to  know  his  will 
in  this  new  business."  * 

Mr.  Vasey,  for  some  unknown  reason,  did  not  ac- 
company Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Whatcoat;  and  this  was 
the  first  interview  with  Asbury.  Mr.  Asbury  informs 
us  that  on  the  17th  of  November  he  "rode  to  quar- 
terly meeting  at  Deer  Creek,  thence  by  Mr.  Gough's 
to  Baltimore."  On  Tuesday,  the  23d,  he  says:  "We 
rode  twenty  miles  to  Frederick  quarterly  meeting, 
where  Brother  Vasey  preached  on  '  The  Lord  is  my 
shepherd;  I  shall  not  want.'  Our  love- feast  was 
attended  with  the  power  and  presence  of  God. 
Leaving  Frederick,  I  went  to  Calvert  quarterly  meet- 
ing. Brother  Poythress  and  myself  had  much  talk 
about  the  new  plan." 

On  Friday,  the  26th,  he  writes :  "  I  observed  this 
day  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer,  that  I  might  know 
the  will  of  God  in  the  matter  that  is  shortly  to  come 
before  our  Conference.  The  preachers  and  people 
seem  to  be  much  pleased  with  the  projected  plan.  I 
myself  am  led  to  think  it  is  of  the  Lord.  I  am  not 
tickled  with  the  honor  to  be  gained.  I  see  danger  in 
the  way.  My  soul  waits  upon  God.  O  that  he  may 
lead  us  in  the  way  we  should  go !  Part  of  my  time 


>  Asbury's  Journal,  N.  Y.,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  876. 


258   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

is,  and  must  necessarily  be,  taken  up  with  preparing 
for  the  Conference."1 

On  Tuesday,  30th,  Mr.  Asbury  makes  this  signifi- 
cant entry:  "The  Rev.  M.  W — s  and  myself  had  an 
interesting  conversation  on  the  subject  of  the  epis- 
copal mode  of  Church  government."2 

Saturday,  December  4th,  he  "rode  to  Baltimore." 
On  Tuesday,  the  14th,  he  says:  "I  met  Dr.  Coke  at 
Abingdon,  Mr.  Richard  Dallam  kindly  taking  him 
there  in  his  coach.  He  preached  on  'He  that  hath 
the  Son  hath  life.'  We  talked  of  our  concerns  in 
great  love. 

"Wednesday,  15th.  My  soul  was  much  blessed  at 
the  communion,  where  I  believe  all  were  more  or  less 
engaged  with  God.  I  feel  it  necessary  to  daily  give 
up  my  own  will.  The  Dr.  preached  a  great  sermon 
on  'He  that  loveth  father  or  mother  more  than 
me/  etc. 

"  Saturday,  18th.  Spent  the  day  at  Perry  Hall, 
partly  in  preparing  for  Conference.  My  intervals  of 
time  I  passed  in  reading  the  third  volume  of  the 
British  Arminian  Magazine.  Continued  at  Perry  Hall 
until  Friday,  the  24th.  We  then  rode  to  Baltimore, 
where  we  met  a  few  preachers."  8 

When  Asbury  met  Coke  at  Abingdon,  the  latter 
was  on  his  way  to  Perry  Hall.  At  Abingdon  they 
were  joined  by  William  Black,  an  English  preacher, 
who  had  founded  Methodism  in  Nova  Scotia,  and  was 


» Asbury,  Journal,  N.  Y.,  1821,  Vol.  I,  pp.  376, 877. 
«/d.,  p.  377. 


THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OF  1784.     259 

now  seeking  ministerial  re-enforcements  for  that  dis- 
tant province.1 

Stevens  says  that  "  on  the  17th  of  December  all 
the  traveling  preachers,  except  Whatcoat,  arrived 
under  the  roof  of  Gough,  at  Perry  Hall."  Dr.  Coke 
referred  to  this  noted  mansion  as  "  the  most  elegant 
house  in  this  State,"  and  he  adds:  "I  have  a  nobie 
room  to  myself,  where  Mr.  Asbury  and  I  may,  in  the 
course  of  a  week,  mature  everything  for  the  Confer- 
ence." Mr.  Black,  alluded  to  above,  speaks  of  Perry 
Hall  as  "  the  most  spacious  and  elegant  building  "  he 
had  seen  in  America.  "It  is,"  he  says,  "about  fifteen 
miles  from  Baltimore.  Mr.  Gough,  its  owner,  is  a 
Methodist,  and  supposed  to  be  worth  one  hundred 
thousand  pounds.2  He  is  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel 
of  Christ.  He  has  built  a  neat  stone  meeting-house, 
entertains  the  circuit  preachers,  and  at  times  preaches 
himself;  and  thus  he  continued  to  do  during  the  late 
war,  at  the  risk  of  his  immense  estate."3 

Whatcoat,  who  had  been  preaching  on  the  way, 
arrived  on  the  19th  of  December.  "The  next  day 
they  began  the  revision  of  the  'Rules  and  Minutes/ 
and  made  other  provisions  for  the  approaching  ses- 
sion. Four  days  were  spent  in  this  task,  relieved  by 
frequent  religious  exercises  in  Gough's  numerous  family 
and  by  the  social  hospitalities  of  the  neighborhood."4 


i  A.  Stevens,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  N.  !. 
1865,  Vol.  II,  p.  179. 

•Immense  wealth  for  that  time,  and  equal  to  millions  to-day. 

•Dr.  Rtchey's  Life  of  Black.  Halifax,  1839,  p.  185. 

4  A.  Stevens,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  N.  Y., 
1865,  Vol.  II,  p.  180. 


260    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

On  Friday,  the  24th  of  December,  1784,  those 
who  had  been  entertained  at  Mr.  Gough's  rode  to 
Baltimore.  There  has  been  a  difference  of  opinion 
among  historians  as  to  the  date  when  the  Conference 
convened.  Lee  has  given  December  27th  as  the 
date,1  which  is  the  date  in  the  heading  of  the  "Form 
of  Discipline"  adopted  at  that  Conference,  as  follows: 
"  Minutes  of  Several  Conversations  between  the  Rev. 
Thomas  Coke,  LL.  D.,  the  Rev.  Francis  Asbury,  and 
Others,  at  a  Conference  begun  in  Baltimore,  in  the 
State  of  Maryland,  on  Monday,  the  27th  of  Decem- 
ber, in  the  Year  1784,  composing  a  Form  of  Disci- 
pline," etc. 

But  Asbury  says  they  "continued  at  Perry  Hall 
until  Friday,  the  24th.  We  then  rode  to  Baltimore, 
where  we  met  a  few  preachers." 2  Coke  says :  "  On 
Christmas  eve  we  opened  our  Conference,"3  by  which 
it  is  presumed  he  means  not  so  much  the  evening  as 
the  day  before  Christmas.  It  could  not  have  begun 
on  the  27th;  for  Coke's  certificate  of  Asbury's  ordi- 
nation shows  that  Asbury  was  ordained  a  deacon  on 
the  25th,  and  on  the  26th  was  ordained  an  elder.4 
This  implies  that  the  Conference  was  in  session  as 
early  as  the  25th.  Asbury  says  they  rode  to  Balti- 
more on  the  24th,  and  Coke  says  the  Conference 
opened  that  day.  Possibly  the  two  dates  may  be  har- 
monized by  accepting  the  24th  as  the  date  when  the 


>Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  04. 
•Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  377.       'Coke's  Journal. 
< Certificate  of  Asbury's  Ordination,  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I, 
p.  878. 


THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OP  1784.     261 

Conference  convened,  and  the  27th  as  the  date  when 
the  "Form  of  Discipline"  was  considered  or  finally 
adopted;  or  possibly  the  four  may  have  been  mistaken 
for  a  seven. 

Whatcoat  gives  not  only  the  day  but  the  hour 
when  the  Conference  opened  its  session.  He  says: 
"  On  the  24th  we  rode  to  Baltimore ;  at  ten  o'clock 
we  began  our  Conference." l 

This  Conference  has  been  called  the  "  Christmas 
Conference,"  because  it  was  in  session  during  the 
Christmas  season.  Thus  Asbury  remarks :  "  We  spent 
the  whole  week  in  Conference."2 

The  sessions  were  held  in  the  Lovely  Lane  Chapel. 
Lee  tells  us  this  meeting  "  was  considered  to  be  a  Gen- 
eral Conference,"  and  that  "  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis 
Asbury  presided." 3  Dr.  Coke  says  that  out  of  eighty- 
one  traveling  preachers,  nearly  sixty  were  present. 

Stevens  remarks  that  "  Coke,  on  taking  the  chair, 
presented  a  letter  from  Wesley,  dated  Bristol,  Sep- 
tember 10,  1784."*  This  was  the  circular  letter 
which  has  been  quoted  in  the  preceding  chapter.  * 

The  Rev.  Thomas  Ware,  who  was  present  at  the 
"Christmas  Conference,"  tells  us  that  the  letter  was 
"  read,  analyzed,  and  cordially  approved  by  the  Con- 
ference." ' 

Asbury  informs  us,  that  the  Conference  spent  the 

i  Whatcoat 's  Mems.,  p.  21. 
»  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  878. 
•Lee's  History  of  the  Methodists,  1MO,  p.  94. 

«A.  Stevens,  History  of   the   Methodist   Episcopal   Church,  1865. 
Vol.  II,  p.  181. 
*  Pages  231-234. 
•Autobiography  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  Waie,  1840,  pp.  106,  106. 


262    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

time  "debating  freely,  and  determining  all  things  by 
a  majority  of  votes."1 

Never  before  did  he  say  that  about  an  American 
Conference.  Heretofore  the  members  may  have  de- 
bated freely,  but  this  is  the  first  time  we  read  of  a 
Conference  "determining  all  things  by  a  majority  of 
votes." 

At  last  the  Conference  was  supreme,  and  the  votes 
of  the  majority  took  the  place  of  the  will  of  one  man. 
Conference  government  is  enthroned,  and  personal 
rule  becomes  a  thing  of  the  past* 

Now  the  question  is  not  what  Mr.  Wesley  in- 
tended, but  what  did  the  Conference  do  ? 

Asbury  states :  "  It  was  agreed  to  form  ourselves 
into  an  Episcopal  Church,  and  to  have  superintend- 
ents, elders,  and  deacons."  2 

As  previously  quoted,  Asbury  spoke  of  "  the  de- 
sign of  organizing  the  Methodists  into  an  independent 
Episcopal  Church ;"  now  he  declares  that  those  as- 
sembled in  the  Conference  formed  themselves  into  an 
Episcopal  Church.  They  organized  a  Church  which 
was  episcopal,  and  which  was  independent  of  all  other 
Churches. 

Thomas  "Ware  says:  "We  therefore,  according  to 
the  best  of  our  knowledge,  received  and  followed 
the  advice  of  Mr.  Wesley,  as  stated  in  our  Form  of 
Discipline;"3  and  Garrettson  says:  "We  acceded  to 
the  method  proposed  by  Mr.  Wesley."4  So  they 


» Asbnry's  Journal,  New  York,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  378.       « Id.,  pp.  877,  S78. 

•  Antoblography  of  Rev.  Thomas  Ware,  New  York,  1840,  p.  1€5. 

« Autobiography  of  Freeborn  Garrettson,  Philadelphia,  1791,  p.  198. 


THE  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OF  1784.    263 

understood  that  what  they  did  was  in  harmony  with 
the  desire  of  Mr.  Wesley. 

William  Waiters,  another  member  of  that  Confer- 
ence, says :  "  We  formed  ourselves  into  a  separate 
Church.  This  change  was  proposed  to  us  by  Mr. 
Wesley  after  we  had  craved  his  advice  on  the  subject ; 
but  could  not  take  effect  till  adopted  by  us,  which 
was  done  in  a  deliberate,  formal  manner,  at  a  Confer-, 
ence  called  for  that  purpose,  in  which  there  was  not 
one  dissenting  vote." l 

The  Rev.  Richard  Whatcoat  relates  that  the  Con- 
ference "agreed  to  form  a  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  in  which  the  Liturgy  (as  presented  by  Mr. 
Wesley)  should  be  read,  and  the  sacraments  be  ad- 
ministered by  a  superintendent,  elders,  and  deacons."2 

The  "  Form  of  Discipline  "  adopted  by  this  Con- 
ference has  the  following: 

"  Ques.  3.  As  the  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  the  civil  affairs 
of  these  United  States  have  passed  through  a  very  consider- 
able change  by  the  Revolution,  what  plan  of  Church  govern- 
ment shall  we  hereafter  pursue? 

"  Am.  We  will  form  ourselves  into  an  Episcopal  Church, 
under  the  direction  of  superintendents,  elders,  deacons,  and 
helpers,  according  to  the  forms  of  ordination  annexed  to  our 
Liturgy,  and  the  Form  of  Discipline  set  forth  in  these 
Minutes." 

The  Minutes  of  all  the  transactions  of  this  Con- 
ference do  not  appear  to  be  extant,  either  in  print 
or  manuscript,  but  their  lack  is  supplied  by  the 
testimony  of  participants;  but  the  Annual  Minutes 


» Autobiography  of  Rev.  Win.  Walters,  1806,  p.  102. 

>  Whatcoat's  Mems.,  p.  21.    The  Italics  are  Whutcoafi. 


264    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

for  the  next  year,  1785,  contain  the  following  para- 
graph :  "Therefore,  at  this  Conference  we  formed  our- 
selves into  an  independent  Church,  and,  following  the 
counsel  of  Mr.  John  Wesley,  who  recommended  the 
episcopal  mode  of  Church  government,  we  thought  it 
best  to  become  an  Episcopal  Church,  making  the 
episcopal  office  elective,  and  the  elected  superintend- 
ent or  bishop  amenable  to  the  body  of  ministers  and 
preachers." l 

Mr.  Asbury  says:  "When  the  Conference  was 
seated,  Dr.  Coke  and  myself  were  unanimously 
elected  to  the  superintendency  of  the  Church."* 

Having  thus  decided  upon  the  organization,  the 
Conference  elected  various  persons  to  deacons'  and 
elders'  orders,  and,  under  its  authority,  persons  were 
ordained  deacons  and  elders;  and  Asbury  was  formally 
set  apart  for  the  office  of  a  superintendent.  Thus 
was  organized  "  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  or, 
to  give  its  full  title,  "The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America." 

This  Conference,  as  is  evident,  was  not  for  the 
purpose  of  doing  ordinary  Conference  work.  It  was 
rather  of  the  nature  of  a  Convention  for  the  pur- 
pose of  considering  the  question  of  organization. 
Yet  it  was  a  "  General  Conference  "  in  the  sense  that 
the  call  was  to  the  preachers  generally. 

Preachers  from  all  sections  responded  to  the  call. 
About  sixty  out  of  a  total  of  eighty-one  preachers 

i  It  Is  more  than  doubtful  whether  the  word  "  bishop  "  appeared  In 
the  first  issue  of  these  Minutes.  It  was  probably  an  insertion  in  the 
reprint. 

1  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  I,  p.  378. 


THE;  ORGANIZING  CONFERENCE  OF  1784.      265 

ass<  aibled,  making,  doubtless,  the  largest  number 
that  ever  attended  a  Conference  session  in  this 
country  up  to  that  date.  It  will  be  remembered, 
too,  that  ordinarily  all  the  preachers  were  not  ex- 
pected to  attend;  for  at  the  Conference  of  1783  it  was 
settled  that  "  the  assistants  and  those  who  are  to  be 
receivol  into  connection"1  should  be  expected  to  at- 
tend the  Conference  session.  This  Conference,  there- 
fore, w*s  a  very  representative  assembly.2 

The  expressions,  "We  will  form  ourselves"  and 
"  We  formed  ourselves,"  show  that  its  members  rec- 
ognized the  fact  that  the  supreme  power  now  vested 
in  the.  General  Conference,  or,  as  in  the  words  used 
in  the  Minutes  of  1785,  "the  body  of  ministers  and 
preachers." 

Nothing  therefore  was  done  by  Mr.  Wesley's  di- 
rection, but  by  the  Conference  of  preachers  in  the 
free  use  of  the  power  which  its  members  believed 
vested  in  them  when  in  Conference  assembled.  They 
elected  the  superintendents,  they  passed  upon  the 
plan  for  reorganization.  They  formed  themselves 
into  a  Church,  and  decided  that  it  should  be  episco- 
pal and  liturgical;  but  they  decided  that  it  should  be 
a  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  that  is  to  say,  an  Epi» 
copal  Church,  qualified  by  Methodist  teachings  as  to 
polity  and  doctrine.  They  decided  that  thereafter 
the  episcopal  office  would  be  elective,  and  made  those 
elected  subject  to  the  body  of  ministers. 

The  result  was  a  marked  change  in  the  govern- 

» Question  19,  Minutes  177&-1813,  p.  42. 

*For  further  particulars  see  Evolution  of  Episcopacy  and  Organic 
Methodism,  by  T.  B.  Neely,  New  York,  IStW,  pp.  236-298. 

18 


266    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

ment  of  American  Methodism.  It  was  a  change 
from  personal  government,  vested  in  an  individual — 
whether  Wesley,  Coke,  Asbury,  or  any  other  person — 
to  Conference  government,  in  which  all  authority 
should  vest  primarily  in  the  body  of  the  ministry, 
which  ministry  should  exercise  its  power  when  acting 
together  as  one  body. 

Conditions  had  been  reversed.  Instead  of  one 
man  or  a  few  men  controlling  the  body  of  the  minis- 
try, the  body  of  the  ministry  had  become  supreme, 
and  all  power — whether  legislative,  executive,  or 
judicial — centered  in  and  emanated  from  the  minis- 
try in  Conference  assembled.  Personal  government 
had  passed  away,  and  Conference  government  had 
taken  its  place. 

Notwithstanding  this,  the  Conference  placed  in  its 
"Form  of  Discipline"  the  following: 

"  Ques.  2.  What  can  be  done  in  order  to  the  future  union 
of  the  Methodists? 

"  Ana.  During  the  life  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley  we  ac- 
knowledge ourselves  his  sons  in  the  gospel,  ready  in  matters 
belonging  to  Church  government  to  obey  his  commands.  And 
we  do  engage,  after  his  death,  to  do  everything  that  we  judge 
consistent  with  the  cause  of  religion  in  America  and  the 
political  interests  of  these  States  to  preserve  and  promote  our 
union  with  the  Methodists  in  Europe." 

This  was  a  courteous  recognition  of  Mr.  Wesley; 
but,  as  will  be  seen,  it  had  no  practical  value. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789. 

BEGINNING  with  the  year  1785,  the  title  of 
JLJ  the  Annual  Minutes  was  changed.  Before  it 
read :  u  Minutes  of  Some  Conversations  Between  the 
Preachers  in  Connection  with  the  Reverend  Mr.  John 

Wesley.     Begun  at and  ended  at ."     Now 

the  form  became :  "  Minutes  Taken  at  the  Several 
Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  for  the  Year ." 

This  was  the  beginning  of  a  formal  recognition 
of  distinct  bodies  called  Annual  Conferences;  but  the 
evolution  was  not  yet  complete.  They  were  now 
separate  bodies  in  one  sense;  but  for  law-making  pur- 
poses all  had  to  be  taken  together  to  make  the  gov- 
erning unit. 

In  1785  three  Conferences  were  held, — the  first  at 
Green  Hills,  North  Carolina,  on  the  20th  of  April; 
the  next  at  Mr.  Mason's,  in  Brunswick  County,  Vir- 
ginia, on  the  first  day  of  May ;  and  the  third  in  Bal- 
timore, on  the  first  day  of  June.1 

Lee  remarks :  "  This  was  the  first  time  we  had 
more  than  one  regular  Conference  in  the  same  year. 
For.  a  few  years  before  this  we  had  two  Conferences 
in  the  same  year;  but  they  were  considered  oiily  as 

i  Lee's  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  118. 

267 


268    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

one,  first  begun  in  one  place  and  adjourned  to  an- 
other. Now  there  were  three,  and  no  adjournment." 
Continuing  he  says:  "The  business  of  the  three  Con- 
ferences was  all  arranged  in  the  Minutes  as  if  it  had 
all  been  done  at  one  time  and  place;  and,  for  the 
first  time,  we  had  the  Annual  Minutes  printed,  which 
practice  we  have  followed  ever  since." l 

Lee  also  says :  "  This  year  and  the  two  succeeding 
years  the  Minutes  were  called  '  Minutes  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  America.'"2  The  reprint  of  1813  which  is  at 
hand  does  not  give  this  form;  but  Mr.  Lee  may  be 
correct,  and  probably  is,  for  he  wrote  his  "  History  of 
the  Methodists  in  the  United  States  of  America"  in 
1809,  and  may  have  had  in  his  possession  the  earliest 
impressions.  If  he  is  accurate  in  his  statement,  then 
in  the  reprint  a  change  was  made  in  the  title;  but  the 
title  he  gives  suggests  a  fact  of  much  value;  namely, 
that  the  members  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  consti- 
tuted the  General  Conference,  and  though  they  might 
not  come  together  in  one  place,  yet  that  agreed  upon 
by  each  and  all  of  the  Annual  Conferences  was 
equivalent  to  the  action  of  the  General  Conference 
when  assembled  in  one  place. 

The  Annual  Minutes  give  names,  figures,  and 
decisions  as  though  there  was  only  one  meeting. 
The  Annual  Conferences  are  becoming  distinct  in 
membership;  but  the  law-making  power  belongs  to 
all,  and  nothing  can  become  a  law  unless  adopted  by 
every  Annual  Conference;  and,  when  so  adopted,  it  is 

>  Jesse  I^ee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  118.       *  Ibid. 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789.     269 

equivalent  to  the  action  of  all,  meeting  in  one  place  in 
a  consolidated  General  Conference. 

Dr.  Stevens  says :  "  The  Christmas  Conference 
was  the  first  General  Conference;  that  is  to  say,  all 
the  Annual  Conferences  were  supposed  to  be  there 
assembled.  It  was,  therefore,  the  supreme  judicatory 
of  the  Church.  It  was  not  yet  a  delegated  body, 
but  the  whole  ministry  in  session.  It  made  no  pro- 
vision for  any  future  session  of  the  kind;  but  for 
some  years  legislative  enactments  were  made  as  here- 
tofore, every  new  measure  being  submitted  to  each 
Annual  Conference  by  the  superintendents,  and  the 
majority  of  all  being  necessary  to  its  validity.  .  .  . 
Until  the  appointment  of  stated  or  regular  General 
Conferences  the  Annual  Conferences  continued  to  be 
considered  local  or  sectional  meetings  of  the  one  un- 
divided ministry,  held  in  different  localities,  for  the 
local  convenience  of  its  members, — every  general  or 
legislative  measure  being  submitted,  as  we  have  seen, 
to  all  the  sessions  before  it  could  become  a  law.  .  .  . 
The  Annual  Conference  was,  therefore,  still  the  su- 
preme assembly  of  the  Church,  except  when,  by  its 
appointment,  a  General  Conference — that  is  to  say,  a 
collective  assembly  of  the  Annual  Conference — should 
intervene."  l 

So  Dr.  Bangs  observes :  "  It  seems  that  heretofore 
there  had  been  held  only  one  regular  Conference  iu 
a  year;  for,  though  some  of  the  preachers  had  as- 
sembled in  separate  places,  for  the  dispatch  of  their 

»A.  Stevens,  Hlsiory  of   Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  New  York, 
1806,  Vol.  11,  pp.  219-221. 


270    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

local  affairs,  the  regular  Conference  was  considered 
one  and  indivisible  as  to  all  matters  of  a  general 
character.  But  as  the  work  enlarged,  new  circuits 
formed,  and  additional  laborers  entered  the  field ; 
and  these  scattered  over  such  a  large  surface  of 
country,  it  became  inconvenient  for  all  the  preachers 
to  assemble  together  in  one  place.  Hence  this  year 
(1785)  there  were  held  three  Conferences, — one  at 
Green  Hills  in  North  Carolina,  April  20th ;  another 
at  Mr.  Mason's,  Brunswick  County,  Virginia,  May 
1st;  and  the  other  at  Baltimore,  on  the  first  day  of 
June.  But  though  the  business  was  transacted  in 
three  separate  Conferences,  their  doings  appeared  in 
the  Minutes  as  one,  because  nothing  except  the  sta- 
tioning of  the  preachers,  was  considered  binding 
which  was  done  in  one  Conference,  unless  approved 
by  all  the  rest." 1 

Lee,  referring  to  the  printed  Minutes  of  1785,  re- 
marks that  "  the  form  of  the  Minutes  of  Conference 
was  changed  this  year,  and  all  the  elders  who  were 
directed  to  take  the  oversight  of  several  circuits  were 
set  to  the  right  hand  of  a  bracket,  which  inclosed  all 
the  circuits  and  preachers  of  which  he  was  to  take 
charge.  This  may  be  considered  as  the  beginning 
of  the  presiding  elder's  office;  although  it  was  not 
known  by  that  name  at  that  time,  yet,  in  the  absence 
of  a  superintendent,  this  elder  had  the  directing  of  all 
the  preachers  that  were  inclosed  in  the  bracket 
against  which  his  name  was  set."  2 

i  Nathan  Bangs,  D.  D.,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
Mew  York,  10th  Ed.,  pp.  243,  244.    This  work  was  written  in  1838. 
*  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodist*,  1810,  pp.  119, 120. 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789.      271 

In  the  reprint  of  1813  the  name  of  the  elder 
stands  at  the  head  of  the  list  of  appointments  and 
preachers,  and  it  was  his  duty  to  administer  the  sac- 
raments within  the  bounds  of  the  charges  named. 
Brackets  are  used  in  this  edition  where  there  are 
more  names  connected  with  a  circuit  than  can  be 
placed  in  one  line.  In  this  arrangement  is  a  fore- 
shadowing of  the  presiding-eldership  and  also  of  the 
division  of  a  Conference  into  districts  over  which 
the  presiding  elders  would  have  supervision. 

The  Minutes  for  1785  show  only  one  action  of  a 
legislative  character,  namely: 

"  It  is  recommended  to  all  our  brethren  to  suspend  the 
execution  of  the  minute  on  slavery  till  the  deliberations  of  a 
future  Conference,  and  that  an  equal  space  of  time  be  allowed 
all  our  members  for  consideration,  when  the  minute  shall  be 
put  in  force. 

"  N.  B. — We  do  hold  in  the  deepest  abhorrence  the  practice 
of  slavery ;  and  shall  not  cease  to  seek  its  destruction  by  all 
wise  and  prudent  means."  * 

The  edition  of  the  Discipline  printed  in  London 
in  1786  omits  Question  23  on  the  use  of  "  Spirituous 
Liquors,"  the  Rule  on  Slavery,  that  on  supplying  va- 
cancies on  circuits,  and  that  on  the  trial  of  preachers. 
These  changes  suggest  the  fact  that  in  the  early  years 
following  the  reorganization  of  1784  the  Minutes  of 
the  Conferences  do  not  record  changes  which  were 
made  in  the  Discipline.  The  proceedings  have  been 
lost  and  only  the  resillts  retained,  and  now  and  then 
changes  are  made  for  which  there  is  DO  evidence  to 
prove  that  the  Conferences  were  responsible. 


» Methodist  Conference*,  1773-1818,  p.  65. 


272    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

This  year  a  second  edition  of  the  Sunday  Service 
was  printed  in  London.  The  title  of  the  edition  of 
1784  was,  as  we  have  already  learned,  "  The  Sunday 
Service  of  the  Methodists  in  North  America,"  while 
the  edition  of  1786  reads,  "  The  Sunday  Service  of 
the  Methodists  in  the  United  States  of  America," 
showing  that  North  America  was  used  by  Wesley  in 
the  sense  of  the  United  States  of  America;  and  so  in 
the  title  to  the  Form  of  Discipline  made  in  1784, 
"Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America"  meant 
"The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America." 

The  Minutes  for  1786  do  not  show  any  action  of 
a  legislative  character,  but  they  mention  the  fact  that 
Edward  Dromgoole  and  William  Glendenning,  who 
have  been  frequently  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
pages  had  "  desisted  from  traveling."  The  latter  states 
that  he  "  stopped  traveling  in  the  month  of  June, 
1785." l  Referring  to  this  matter  Lee  says  that  "by 
some  means  he  lost  his  reason."  * 

This  is  the  man  who,  in  1784,  Asbury  de- 
clared "  had  been  devising  a  plan "  to  lay  Asbury 
aside,  "or  at  least  to  abridge"  his  powers.  At  the 
Conference  of  that  year,  after  Glendenning  and  any 
others  who  held  his  views  had  been  silenced  by  the 
reading  of  Wesley's  letter  to  which  reference  has 
been  made,3  Mr.  Glendenning  was  sent  to  Brunswick 
in  the  southern  part  of  Virginia.  He  thus  gives  his 
experience  while  in  that  locality :  "  My  mind  got 
more  and  more  darkened,  and  I  lost  sight  of  my 

J  Autobiography  of  William  Glendennlng,  Philadelphia,  1795,  p.  16. 
•Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  123. 
•  Pages  210,211.212. 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789.      273 

reconciled  God,  and  all  spiritual  comforts  departed 
from  me."1 

At  the  Christmas  Conference  he  says:  "They 
wanted  me  to  go  as  a  missionary  to  Nova  Scotia; 
which  I  refused  with  warmth." 2  At  the  same  Con- 
ference he  was  proposed  for  elder's  orders,  but  was 
not  elected.  Referring  to  this  he  remarks :  "  I  was 
rejected  from  the  eldership.  The  reason  assigned 
was,  that  I  wanted  gifts."  After  this  he  says:  "  While 
Mr.  Asbury  was  at  prayer,  I  felt  all  light  of  divine 
mercy,  as  in  a  moment,  take  its  flight  from  me.  My  soul 
then  sunk  into  the  depths  of  misery  and  despair."3 

In  1792  he  desired  to  be  restored  to  Confer- 
ence membership,  but  Lee  remarks :  "  The  Confer- 
ence believed  him  to  be  beside  himself  at  that  time, 
and  would  not  receive  him."4 

The  Conference  of  1787  is  memorable  in  many  re- 
spects. Wesley  directed  that  a  General  Conference 
be  held  that  year,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  following 
letter  addressed  to  Dr.  Coke : 

"  LONDON,  September  6,  1786. 

"DEAR  SIR,— I  desire  that  you  would  appoint  a 
General  Conference  of  all  our  preachers  in  the  United 
States  to  meet  at  Baltimore  on  May  1,  1787,  and 
that  Mr.  Richard  Whatcoat  may  be  appointed  super- 
intendent with  Mr.  Francis  Asbury.  I  am,  dear  sir, 
your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 

"  JOHN  WESLEY. 
"  To  the  REV.  DR.  COKE." 


i  Life  of  William  Glendennlng,  Philadelphia,  1795,  pp.  11, 12. 

t  Id.,  p.  13.          •  Id.,  p.  14. 

« Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810  pp.  122, 123. 


274    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Coke,  in  obedience  to  Wesley's  desire,  came  to 
America  to  hold  a  General  Conference;  but  it  appears 
that  there  was  no  regularly  called  General  Conference, 
though  the  session  at  Baltimore  has  been  frequently 
so  styled  because  it  undertook  to  transact  that  which 
was  really  General  Conference  business. 

Sherman,  referring  to  the  Baltimore  Conference 
of  1787,  says:  "By  some  this  has  been  incorrectly 
classed  as  a  General  Conference.  That  Wesley  or- 
dered one,  and  that  Dr.  Coke  came  over  to  hold  it, 
is  true;  but  the  plan  was  .  .  warmly  resisted  by 
Asbury  and  his  associates.  .  .  .  The  Conference  was 
simply  annual,  though  much  business  was  transacted, 
such  as  now  pertains  to  the  General  Conference.  But 
this  does  not  prove  it  to  have  been  a  General  Con- 
ference, as  all  such  matters  were  then  arranged  in 
the  Annual  Conference  of  other  years  as  well  as 
this."1 

Lee  throws  considerable  light  on  the  acts  of  the 
Baltimore  session  of  1787.  From  what  he  tells  us,  it 
is  manifest  that  the  Conference  did  not  hesitate  to  crit- 
icise Dr.  Coke.  This  shows  how  jealous  the  Confer- 
ence was  as  to  its  rights.  Whether  Mr.  Asbury  sym- 
pathized with  the  move  of  the  Conference  is  not  clear. 
He  was  in  the  United  States  all  the  time  while  Dr. 
Coke  was  flitting  here  and  there,  managing  affairs 
not  only  in  the  United  States,  but  also  rendering 
valuable  service  to  Wesley  by  directing  his  work 


» David  Sherman,  D.  I).,  History  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  New  York,  3d  Ed.,  1890,  p.  28. 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  To  1789.     275 

in  England  and  Ireland  and  in  distant  British  pos- 
sessions. 

Lee  relates  that  "at  the  Baltimore  Conference  the 
preachers  complained  of  Dr.  Coke  because  he  had 
taken  upon  himself  a  right  which  they  never  gave 
him,  of  altering  the  time  and  place  of  holding  our 
Conferences  after  it  had  been  settled  and  fixed  on  at 
the  previous  Conference.  Another  complaint  was 
brought  against  him  for  writing  improper  letters  to 
some  of  our  preachers,  such  as  were  calculated  to  stir 
up  strife  and  contention  among  them.  At  that  time 
the  Doctor  saw  that  the  preachers  were  pretty  gener- 
ally united  against  him  He  acknowledged  his  faults, 
begged  pardon,  and  promised  not  to  meddle  with  our 
affairs  again  when  he  was  out  of  tie  United  States. 
He  then  gave  in  writing  a  certificate  to  the  same  pur- 
pose, which  is  as  follows: 

"'THE  CERTIFICATE  OF  DR.  COKE  TO  THE  CONFERENCE. 

"'I  do  solemnly  engage  by  this  instrument  that  I  never 
will,  by  virtue  of  my  office  as  superintendent  of  the  Methodist 
Chuich,  during  my  absence  from  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, exercise  any  government  whatever  in  the  said  Methodist 
Church  during  my  absence  from  the  United  States.  And  I  do 
also  engage  that  I  will  exercise  no  privilege  in  the  said  Church 
when  present  in  the  United  States,  except  that  of  ordaining 
according  to  the  regulations  and  law  already  existing,  or  here- 
after to  be  made,  in  the  said  Church ;  and  that  of  presiding 
when  present  in  Conference;  and  lastly  that  of  traveling  at 
large.  Given  under  my  hand  the  second  day  of  May,  in  the 
year  1787.  THOMAS  COKE. 

14 '  Witnesses : 

" '  JOHN  TDNNIL, 

'"JOHN  HAGKRTY, 

"'  NELSON  REBD.' 


276    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"  The  preachers  then  agreed  to  forgive  what  was 
past,  provided  this  condition  should  be  expressed  in 
the  Minutes,  which  was  done  thus: 

" '  Ques.  Who  are  the  superintendents  of  our  Church  for 
the  United  States? 

"'Ans.  Thomas  Coke  (when  present  in  the  States)  and 
Francis  Asbury.' " l 

Thus  was  affirmed,  first,  the  authority  of  the  Con- 
ference over  the  superintendent;  secondly,  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  superintendeucy  was  for  the  United 
States;  and,  thirdly,  that  when  not  in  the  United 
States,  and  being  thus  out  of  his  jurisdiction,  a  su- 
perintendent could  not  exercise  the  functions  of  his 
office  as  to  matters  in  the  United  States. 

At  the  Conference  of  1786  it  was  agreed  that  the 
next  year  Conferences  would  be  held  at  Salisbury, 
North  Carolina,  May  17th;  at  Petersburg,  Virginia, 
June  19th;  and  at  Abingdon,  Maryland,  July  24th;7 
but  several  changes  were  made. 

Lee  says:  "In  1787  we  had  three  Conferences. 
The  twentieth  Conference  was  held  at  Salisbury,  in 
North  Carolina,  on  the  17th  day  of  March ;  the 
twenty-first  Conference  was  held  at  Rough  Creek 
Church,  in  Virginia,  on  the  19th  day  of  April;  the 
twenty-second  Conference  was  held  at  Baltimore,  on 
the  1st  day  of  May."3 

These  changes  were  made  to  accommodate  Coke, 
and  appear  to  have  given  rise  to  the  above  mentioned 

i  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  pp.  124-128. 

•Printed  Minutes,  1773-1813,  p.  61. 

•Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodist*,  1810,  p.  124. 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789.     277 

action.  Coke  thus  comments  on  the  trouble:  "Con- 
ference began,  when,  behold,  Satan  exerted  his  utmost 
subtilty.  Never,  surely,  was  more  external  peace  and 
liberty  enjoyed  by  the  Church  of  God,  or  any  part  of 
it,  since  the  fall  of  man,  than  we  enjoy  in  America; 
and  everything  seems  to  be  falling  before  the  power 
of  the  Word.  What,  then,  remained  for  the  infernal 
serpent  but  to  sow  the  seeds  of  schism  and  division 
among  ourselves?  But  glory  be  to  God!  yea,  glory 
forever  be  ascribed  to  his  sacred  name!  the  devil  was 
completely  defeated.  Our  painful  contests,  I  trust, 
have  produced  the  most  indissoluble  union  between 
my  brethren  and  me.  We  thoroughly  perceived  the 
mutual  purity  of  each  other's  intentions  in  respect  to 
the  points  in  dispute.  We  mutually  yielded  and  mu- 
tually submitted,  and  the  silken  cords  of  love  and 
affection  were  tied  to  the  horns  of  the  altar  forever 
and  ever." 

The  greatest  difficulty,  however,  grew  out  of  Mr. 
Wesley's  attempt  to  direct  the  Conference  in  the 
selection  of  superintendents.  Mr.  Wesley  evidently 
believed  he  had  that  right,  and  the  organizing  Con- 
vention or  Conference  of  1784  had  by  formal  reso- 
lution agreed,  "in  matters  belonging  to  Church  gov- 
ernment, to  obey  his  commands."  Now,  however, 
when  the  test  is  reached,  the  Conference  resents  the 
assertion  of  authority  on  the  part  of  the  founder  of 
Methodism. 

One  of  those  nominated  at  this  time  by  Mr.  Wes- 
ley was  the  Rev.  Freeborn  Garrettson ;  the  other  was 
the  Rev.  Richard  Whatcoat.  In  1785,  Mr.  Garrett- 


278    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

son  expected  to  be  appointed  to  Charleston,  South 
Carolina;  but,  as  the  Minutes  show,  he  was  sent  to 
Shelburne,'  which  was  in  Nova  Scotia.  Garrettson, 
alluding  to  this,  writes:  "And,  instead  of  Charleston, 
I  had  an  appointment  to  take  charge  of  the  work  in 
the  East.  I  was  tempted  (if  it  was  a  temptation)  to 
think  that  the  nomination  was  partial;  however,  I 
was  resolved,  with  the  blessing  of  the  Lord,  to  go, 
as  long  as  my  strength  would  admit,  anywhere  and 
everywhere,  as  might  be  thought  best."2 

Lee  says:  "In  the  month  of  April,  this  year 
(1787),  Mr.  Freeborn  Garrettson  left  Nova  Scotia, 
and  returned  to  the  United  States;  and  from  that 
time  he  has  continued  in  his  own  native  country. 
Mr.  Wesley  had  given  directions  for  Brother  F.  Gar- 
rettson to  be  ordained  a  superintendent  for  Nova 
Scotia;  but  when  the  business  was  taken  under  con- 
sideration, some  of  the  preachers  insisted  that  if  he 
was  ordained  for  that  station,  he  should  confine  him- 
self wholly  to  that  place  for  which  he  was  set  apart, 
and  not  be  at  liberty  to  return  again  to  this  part  of 
the  country.  Mr.  Garrettson  did  not  feel  freedom  to 
enter  into  an  obligation  of  that  kind,  and  chose 
rather  to  continue  as  he  was,  and  therefore  was  not 
ordained."3 

Mr.  Garrettson,  after  recounting  various  incidents 
of  his  journey,  remarks:  "I  then  pursued  my  way  to 
Baltimore,  where  many  of  the  dear  servants  of  God 


»  Minnies  of  Methodist  Conferences,  1773-1813,  p.  55. 

•  Autobiography  of  Rev.  Freeborn  Garrettson,  1791,  p.  199. 

•Jesse  tiee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  Baltimore,  1810,  p.  128. 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789.     279 

met  in  Conference.  It  was  the  desire  of  Mr.  Wesley 
and  others  that  I  should  be  set  apart  for  the  super- 
intendency  of  the  work  in  Nova  Scotia. — My  mind 
was  divided. — Man  is  a  fallible  creature. — In  the 
end  I  concluded  not  to  leave  the  States,  for  thou- 
sands in  this  country  are  dear  to  me.  On  the  whole 
we  had  a  blessed  Conference,  and  my  appointment  was 
to  preside  in  the  Peninsula."1 

As  Mr.  Lee's  statement  shows,  the  Conference  of 
1787  not  only  refused  to  let  its  own  superintendent 
exercise  power  in  the  United  States  when  he  was  out 
of  the  United  States,  but  also  refused  to  set  apart  a 
superintendent  for  a  foreign  field,  unless  he  would 
remain  in  that  field  and  limit  his  jurisdiction  to  that 
locality.  They  meant  that  one  made  a  superintendent 
for  a  foreign  jurisdiction  should  not  have  any  such 
official  power  within  the  United  States. 

Lee  also  throws  light  upon  the  refusal  of  the 
Conference  to  elect  Whatcoat  to  the  superintendency 
at  this  time.  He  observes  that  "Mr.  Wesley  also 
directed  that  Richard  Whatcoat  should  be  ordained  a 
joint  superintendent  with  Mr.  Asbury.  When  this 
business  was  brought  before  the  Conference  most  of 
the  preachers  objected,  and  would  not  consent  to  it. 
The  reasons  against  it  were:  1.  That  he  was  not 
qualified  to  take  the  charge  of  the  Connection. 
2.  That  they  were  apprehensive  that  if  Mr.  What- 
coat was  ordained,  Mr.  Wesley  would  likely  recall 
Mr.  Asbury,  and  he  would  return  to  England.  Dr. 
Coke  contended  that  we  were  obliged  to  receive  Mr. 

iFreeborn  Qarrettson's  Autobiography,  1791,  p.  220. 


280   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Whatcoat,  because  we  had  said  in  the  Minutes,  taken 
at  the  Christmas  Conference,  when  we  were  first 
formed  into  a  Church  in  1784,  'During  the  life  of 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley  we  acknowledge  ourselves  his 
sons  in  the  gospel,  ready  in  matters  belonging  to 
Church  government  to  obey  his  commands.5  Many 
of  the  members  of  that  Conference  argued  that  they 
were  not  at  the  Conference  when  that  engagement 
was  entered  into,  and  they  did  not  consider  them- 
selves bound  by  it.  Other  preachers,  who  had  said 
they  were  'ready  to  obey  his  commands/  said  they 
did  not  feel  ready  now  to  obey  his  command.  The 
preachers  at  last  agreed  to  depart  from  that  engage- 
ment, which  some  of  the  elder  brethren  had  formally 
entered  into,  and  in  the  next  printed  Minutes  that 
engagement  was  left  out. 

"They  had  made  the  engagement  of  their  own 
accord,  and  among  themselves;  and  they  believed 
they  had  a  right  to  depart  therefrom  when  they 
pleased,  seeing  it  was  not  a  contract  made  with  Mr. 
Wesley  or  any  other  person,  but  an  agreement  among 
themselves.  It  was  further  argued  that  Mr.  Wesley, 
while  in  England,  could  not  tell  what  man  was  quali- 
fied to  govern  us  as  well  as  we  could  who  were 
present  and  were  to  be  governed.  We  believed  also 
that,  if  Mr.  Wesley  was  here  himself,  he  would  be  of 
the  same  opinion  with  us. 

"  We  then  wrote  a  long  and  loving  letter  to  Mr. 
Wesley,  and  requested  him  to  come  over  to  America 
and  visit  his  spiritual  children. 

"  This  step  of  receding  from  the  above  engage- 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789.      281 

ment  was  afterwards  considered  by  some  disaffected 
persons  as  improper.  If  there  was  anything  im- 
proper in  the  business,  it  was  in  entering  into  the 
engagement,  and  not  in  departing  from  it."1 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Garrettson  gives  it  as  his  opinion, 
that  "  the  fear  arising  in  the  minds  of  many  of  the 
members  of  the  Conference  lest  Mr.  Wesley  should 
recall  Mr.  Asbury,  was  the  cause  of  R.  Whatcoat's 
appointment  being  rejected."1 

The  Rev.  Thomas  Ware,  who  was  at  the  Confer- 
ence, gives  us  a  narration  which  corresponds  with 
the  statements  of  Lee  and  other  contemporaries.  He 
says: 

"In  the  spring  of  1787  Dr.  Coke  visited  us 
again,  and  called  the  preachers  to  meet  in  Confer- 
ence at  Baltimore  on  the  1st  day  of  May.  The  lib- 
erty he  took  in  changing  the  time  and  place  of  hold- 
ing the  Conference  gave  serious  offense  to  many  of  the 
preachers.  But  this  was  not  all  nor  even  the  chief 
matter  which  caused  some  trouble  at  this  Confer- 
ence. Mr.  Wesley  had  appointed  Mr.  Whatcoat  a 
superintendent,  and  instructed  Dr.  Coke  to  introduce 
a  usage  among  us,  to  which,  I  may  safely  say,  there 
was  not  one  of  the  preachers  inclined  to  submit, 
much  as  they  loved  and  honored  him.  Mr.  Wesley 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  calling  his  preachers  to- 
gether, not  to  legislate,  but  to  confer.  Many  of 
them  he  found  to  be  excellent  counselors,  and  he 
heard  them  respectfully  on  the  weighty  matters 

i  Jesse  Lee,  Hist,  of  the  Methodists,  Haiti  more,  1810,  pp.  126, 127. 
*  Rev.  Freeborn  Qarrettson's  Seml-ceutennial  Sermon,  p.  20. 

19 


282   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

which  were  brought  before  them;  but  the  right  to 
decide  all  questions  he  reserved  to  himself.  This  he 
deemed  the  more  excellent  way;  and,  as  we  had  vol- 
unteered and  pledged  ourselves  to  obey,  he  in- 
structed the  Doctor,  conformably  to  his  own  usage, 
to  put  as  few  questions  to  vote  as  possible,  saying: 
'  If  you,  Brother  Asbury  and  Brother  Whatcoat,  are 
agreed,  it  is  enough.'  To  place  the  power  of  de- 
ciding all  questions  discussed,  or  nearly  all,  in  the 
hands  of  the  superintendents,  was  what  could  never 
be  introduced  among  us — a  fact  which  we  thought 
Mr.  Wesley  could  not  but  have  known,  had  he 
known  us  as  well  as  we  ought  to  have  been  known 
by  Dr.  Coke.  After  all,  we  had  none  to  blame  as 
much  as  ourselves.  In  the  first  effusion  of  our  zeal 
we  had  adopted  a  rule  binding  ourselves  to  obey  Mr 
Wesley ;  and  this  rule  must  be  rescinded,  or  we  must 
be  content  not  only  to  receive  Mr.  Whatcoat  as  one 
of  our  superintendents,  but  also — as  our  brethren  of 
the  British  Conference — with  barely  discussing  sub- 
jects, and  leaving  the  decision  of  them  to  two  or 
three  individuals.  This  was  the  chief  cause  of  our 
rescinding  the  rule.  All,  however,  did  not  vote  to 
rescind  it;  some  thought  it  would  be  time  enough 
to  do  so  when  our  superintendents  should  claim 
to  decide  questions  independently  of  the  Confer- 
ence, which  it  was  confidently  believed  they  never 
would  do. 

"  We  were  under  many  and  great  obligations  to 
Mr.  Wesley,  and  also  to  Dr.  Coke,  who  had  done 
much  to  serve  us,  and  all  at  their  own  expense.  As 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789.      283 

to  Mr.  Wesley,  there  were  none  of  us  disposed  to  ac- 
cuse him  of  a  desire  to  tyrannize  over  us,  and,  in  con- 
sequence, to  withdraw  our  love  and  confidence  from 
him ;  but  there  was,  perhaps,  with  some,  a  lack  of 
cautiousness  not  to  cause  grief  to  such  a  father. 
There  were  also  suspicions  entertained  by  some  of 
the  preachers,  and  perhaps  by  Mr.  Asbury  himself, 
that  if  Mr.  Whatcoat  were  received  as  a  superintend- 
ent, Mr.  Asbury  would  be  recalled.  For  this  none  of 
us  were  prepared."1 

The  Rev.  William  Phoebus,  who  also  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Conference  of  1787,  states  that  Dr.  Coke 
had  "some  directions  from  Mr.  Wesley  to  give  the 
Conference,  in  which  directions  Richard  Whatcoat 
was  nominated  for  a  third  superintendent.  One  ven- 
tured to  say  that  Mr.  Wesley  took  too  much  on  him — 
yea,  too  much  to  be  borne  with  by  Americans;  that 
he  might  increase  his  impositions  if  his  power  were 
not  checked;  it  might  grow  enormous,  even  to 
popery." 2 

Asbury  appears  to  have  been  opposed  to  the  res- 
olution of  submission  from  the  beginning.  In  a  let- 
ter to  the  Rev.  Joseph  Benson  he  remarks:  "After 
the  Revolution  we  were  called  upon  to  give  a  printed 
obligation,  which  here  follows,  and  could  not  be  dis- 
pensed with — it  must  be."  Again  he  says:  "I 
never  approved  of  that  binding  minute.  I  did  not 
think  It  practical  expediency  to  obey  Mr.  Wesley  at 

»Rev.  Thomas  Ware's  Autobiography,  New  York,  1840,  pp.  129-131. 

•  Memoirs  of  the  Rev.  Richard  Whatcoat,  Late  Bishop  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  by  Rev.  Win.  Phoebus,  M.  D.,  New  fork, 
1828. 


284    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

three  thousand  miles  distance  in  all  matters  relative 
to  Church  government."1 

Referring  to  Mr.  Wesley's  assertion  of  authority, 
Asbury  states :  "  He  rigidly  contended  for  a  special 
and  independent  right  of  governing  the  chief  min- 
ister or  ministers  of  our  order,  which,  in  our  judg- 
ment, meant  not  only  to  put  him  out  of  office,  but  to 
remove  him  from  the  continent  to  elsewhere  that  our 
father  saw  fit ;  and  that  notwithstanding  our  consti- 
tution and  the  right  of  electing  every  Church  officer, 
and  more  especially  our  superintendent.  We  were 
told  '  not  till  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley '  could 
our  constitution  have  its  full  operation."2 

In  England  it  was  not  until  the  decease  of  Mr. 
Wesley  that  the  Deed  of  Declaration  made  the  British 
Conference  a  self-governing  body,  and  it  seems  that 
some  one  tried  to  show  that  the  same  principle  ap- 
plied to  the  reorganized  body  in  America,  but  the 
cases  were  widely  different.  Under  the  Deed  of  Dec- 
laration property  rights  were  involved,  and  the  Con- 
ference could  only  come  into  control  upon  the  death 
of  Mr.  Wesley,  who  enjoyed  the  right  as  long  as  he 
lived.  The  Deed  of  Declaration  conveyed  powers  to 
the  Conference  which  under  law  vested  in  John 
Wesley  during  his  life-time.  With  the  American 
Methodists  the  case  was  different  and  the  circum- 
stances were  different.  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  convey 
to  them  in  a  legal  document  rights  which  inhered  in 

1  Asbury 's  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Joseph  Benson. 

*Asbury'8  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Joseph  Benson;  See  Centennial  His- 
tory of  American  Methodism,  by  Rev.  John  Atkinson,  D.  I).,  New 
York,  1884,  p.  67. 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789.      285 

him.  They  were  in  another  land  and  under  other 
laws,  and  under  the  liberty  of  the  United  States  they 
formed  themselves  into  a  Church.  The  cases  were 
not  parallel. 

The  part  Asbury  had  in  this  matter  has  been  the 
subject  of  considerable  controversy.  It  is  said  that 
he  at  first  acquiesced  in  Wesley's  plan  to  have  What- 
coat  made  a  superintendent,  and  that  the  first  Confer- 
ence of  the  year  did  likewise.  "  When  the  matter  was 
brought  before  the  Virginia  Conference  it  was  strongly 
opposed  by  James  O'Kelly.  This  opposition  surprised 
and  pained  Dr.  Coke.  It  was  agreed,  however,  to 
submit  the  case  for  final  decision  to  the  Conference 
soon  to  be  held  in  Baltimore,  f  on  condition  that  the 
Virginia  Conference  might  send  a  deputy  to  explain 
their  sentiments.' '  At  the  Baltimore  Conference  the 
bishops  called  the  elders  into  council  to  consider  it, 
and  they,  notwithstanding  Coke's  advocacy,  decided 
adversely." 2 

James  O'Kelly,  some  years  after  the  agreement  to 
obey  Wesley  had  been  stricken  out,  charged  that  Mr. 
Asbury  was  the  chief  agent  in  the  transaction.  In 
his  "  Apology  "  O'Kelly  said :  "  After  these  things 
Francis  took  with  him  a  few  chosen  men,  and  in  a 
clandestine  manner  expelled  John,  whose  surname 
was  Wesley,  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

To   this  the  Rev.  Nicholas  Snethen   published  a 


» Rev.  Nicholas  Snethen's  Reply  to  Mr.  O'Kelly's  Apology  for  Pro- 
test! ng  against  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  Government,  Phila- 
delphia, 1800. 

*Rev.  John  Atkinson,  D.  D.,  Centennial  History  of  American  Meth- 
odism, New  York,  1884,  p.  58. 


286    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"  Reply,"  in  which  he  said :  "  At  a  Conference  held 
in  Baltimore,  May  1,  1787,  a  vote  was  taken  that 
Richard  Whatcoat  should  not  be  ordained  superin- 
tendent, and  that  Mr.  Wesley's  name  should  for  the 
future  be  left  off  the  American  Minutes.  Mr.  Asbury 
neither  made  the  motion  nor  advocated  it ;  the  whole 
case  was  constitutionally  carried  through  the  Confer- 
ence, and  voted  by  a  fair  majority." l 

In  regard  to  this  Mr.  Asbury  himself  has  said : 
"At  the  first  General  Conference  I  was  mute  and 
modest  when  it  passed,  and  I  was  mute  when  it  was 
expunged." 

On  the  other  side  the  Atlantic,  Thomas  Rankin, 
his  old  colleague,  charged  the  act  on  Asbury.  Mr. 
Snethen,  who  traveled  with  Asbury  as  early  as  1800, 
says :  "  Mr.  Asbury  considered  Mr.  Rankin  in  the 
light  of  an  opponent,  and  it  is  certain  that  if  there 
was  any  dependence  to  be  placed  in  the  correspond- 
ence of  his  English  friend,  Mr.  Rankin  did  use  all 
his  influence  with  Mr.  Wesley  to  have  him  recalled. 
Mr.  Asbury  was  informed  that  when  the  news  ar- 
rived that  Mr.  Wesley's  name  was  left  off  the  Ameri- 
can Minutes,  Mr.  Rankin,  who  was  present,  without 
waiting  for  the  evidence,  exclaimed,  *  That's  Frank 
Asbury's  doings.'  " 2 

In  a  letter  to  the  Rev.  Joseph  Benson,  Mr.  Asbury 
affirms  that  "the  counsel  of  Diotrephes  [undoubtedly 
Rankin],  in  a  full  Conference,  was  in  substance  this: 

iSnethen's  Reply  to  Mr.  O'Kelly's  Apology  for  Protesting  against 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  Government,  Philadelphia,  1800. 

•Rev.  Nicholas  Suethen's  Methodist  History,  in  the  Weoleyan 
Repository. 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789.      287 

'If  he  had  the  power  and  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley 
he  would  call  Frank  Asbury  home  directly.'  John 
Harper  was  the  man  who  was  present  in  Conference 
and  heard  this  advice  given,  and  told  me  several  years 
after  in  America  with  his  own  mouth."  It  seems 
very  evident  that  there  was  involved  not  only  the 
question  as  to  Wesley's  power  to  nominate  a  new 
superintendent,  but  also  his  power  to  depose  one  al- 
ready in  the  office 

The  Rev.  Thomas  Morrell,  who  was  "  admitted  on 
trial  "at  the  Conference  of  1787,  has  given  an  ac- 
count of  the  affair  in  a  pamphlet,  entitled  "Truth 
Discovered,"  in  which  he  says : 

"Early  in  1787,  Mr.  Wesley  intimated  a  design  of 
removing  Mr.  Asbury  from  America  to  Europe,  and 
of  sending  us  a  superintendent  of  his  own  nomina- 
tion. When  the  Conference  assembled,  some  of  the 
eldest  and  most  sensible  of  the  elders  observed  that 
Mr.  Wesley  had  no  authority  to  remove  Mr.  Asbury, 
much  less  could  he  impose  a  superintendent  on  us 
without  our  choice ;  for  it  was  written  in  our  Consti- 
tution that  'no  person  should  be  ordained  a  superin- 
tendent over  us  without  the  consent  of  the  majority 
of  the  Conference;'  that  no  such  consent  had  been 
given ;  that  though  they  highly  venerated  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, and  were  willing  to  receive  his  advice,  and  pre- 
serve and  promote  our  union  with  him  and  our  Meth- 
odist brethren  in  Europe,  as  far  as  the  political 
interest  of  our  country  would  authorize  us, — yet  they 
could  not  give  up  their  rights  to  any  man  on  earth. 
And  after  a  nqmber  of  arguments  to  show  the  impro- 


288    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

priety  and  impolicy  of  any  man  having  the  power  to 
exercise  such  an  uncontrollable  and  unlimited  author- 
ity over  us  as  Mr.  Wesley  wished  to  do,  and  to  pre- 
vent him  from  exercising  this  power  in  the  present 
case  by  virtue  of  his  name  standing  at  the  head  of 
the  Minutes,  they  moved  that  it  should  be  struck  off. 
The  vote  was  carried,  and  his  name  was  omitted. 
Mr.  Wesley  complained  that  we  were  ungrateful. 
We  felt  ourselves  grieved  that  the  good  old  man  was 
hurt,  and  determined  to  give  him  every  satisfaction 
in  our  power  consistent  with  our  rights;  and  in  1789 
the  Conference  consented  that  his  name  should  be 
restored  on  the  Minutes,  in  testimony  of  our  union 
with  and  respect  for  him,  but  inserted  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  preclude  him  from  exercising  an  unconstitu- 
tional power  over  us." l 

Wesley  felt  aggrieved.  Asbury  says  that  Mr. 
Wesley  was  told  "that  no  sooner  had  he  granted  the 
Americans  what  they  wished  than  they  declared  them- 
selves independent  of  him."2 

Wesley  blamed  Asbury,  and  thus  wrote  to  What- 
coat:  "It  was  not  well  judged  of  Brother  Asbury  to 
suffer,  much  less  indirectly  encourage,  the  foolish  step 
in  the  last  Conference.  Every  preacher  present 
ought,  both  in  duty  and  in  prudence,  to  have  said: 
'  Brother  Asbury,  Mr.  Wesley  is  your  father,  conse- 
quently ours/  Candor  will  affirm  this  in  the  face  of 
the  world.  It  is  highly  probable  that  disallowing  me 


i  Rev.  John  Atkinson,  D.  D.,  Centennial  History  of  American  Meth- 
odism, New  York,  1881,  pp.  61,  62. 

*  Asbury  '•  Letter  to  Rev.  Joseph  Benson. 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789.      289 

will,  as  soon  as  my  head  is  laid,  occasion  a  total 
breach  between  the  English  and  American  Method- 
ists. They  will  naturally  say:  'If  they  can  do  with- 
out us,  we  can  do  without  them/  But  they  would 
find  a  greater  difference  than  they  imagine.  Next 
would  follow  a  separation  among  themselves."1 

Again,  in  a  letter,  dated  October  31,  1789,2  Wes- 
ley said:  "I  was  a  little  surprised  when  I  received 
some  letters  from  Mr.  Asbury,  affirming  that  no  per- 
son in  Europe  knew  how  to  direct  those  in  America. 
Soon  after,  he  flatly  refused  to  receive  Mr.  Whatcoat 
in  the  character  I  sent  him.  He  told  George  Shad- 
ford:  'Mr.  Wesley  and  I  are  like  Ca?sar  and 
Pompey — he  will  bear  no  equal,  and  I  will  bear  no 
superior.' s  And  accordingly  he  quietly  sat  by  until 
his  friends  voted  my  name  out  of  the  American  Min- 
utes. This  completed  the  matter,  and  showed  that  he 
had  no  connection  with  me." 

To  these  charges  Mr.  Asbury  thus  replied :  "  And 
why  was  I  thus  charged?  Because  I  did  not  estab- 
lish Mr.  Wesley's  absolute  authority  over  the  Ameri- 
can Connection.  For  myself,  this  I  had  submitted 
to;  but  the  Americans  were  loo  jealous  to  bind  them- 
selves to  yield  to  him  in  all  things  relative  to  Church 
government.  Mr.  Wesley  was  a  man  they  had  never 
seen — was  three  thousand  miles  off;  how  might  sub- 
mission in  such  a  case  be  expected?  Brother  Coke 


i  Memoir*  of  Bishop  Whatcoat,  by  Wm.  Phoebus,  M.  D.,  New 
York,  1828. 

•Published  by  Rev.  Wm.  Hammett.  In  Charleston,  South  Carolina. 

•It  is  supposed  that  Wesley  was  mistaken  In  attributing  thia  lan- 
guage to  Asbury. 


290   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

and   myself  gave  offense  to  the  Connection   by  en 
forcing  Mr.  Wesley's  will  in  some  matters." 

Asbury  admits  that  he  was  mute  when  the  agree- 
ment was  expunged  from  the  Minutes;  or,  to  speak 
more  accurately,  from  the  Discipline.  Whether  he 
took  an  active  part  in  the  movement  has,  to-day,  lit- 
tle practical  value.  For  him  to  be  mute  under  such 
circumstances  was  to  give  encouragement  to  those 
who  were  opposed  to  Wesley's  supremacy. 

If  Asbury  had  been  openly  opposed,  it  would 
have  been  simply  to  have  voiced  his  convictions. 
After  the  agreement  of  1784,  it  might  have  been 
necessary  for  him  to  have  explained  his  action  to 
Mr.  Wesley ;  but  posterity  would  not  demand  any 
apology. 

Asbury  was  right  when  he  maintained  that  a  man 
residing  beyond  an  ocean  three  thousand  miles  wide 
could  not  direct  American  Methodism.  Whatever 
may  have  been  his  motive,  even  if  it  was  to  make 
himself  more  independent,  the  action  needs  no  apology, 
but  was  productive  of  great  good. 

.  It  was  absurd  to  suppose  that  even  a  Wesley  could, 
under  such  conditions,  direct  a  growing  Church  in  a 
remote  Republic.  The  young  Church  was  competent 
to  care  for  itself,  and  would  not  brook  foreign  inter- 
ference, no  matter  by  whom  exerted. 

To  state  the  matter  in  brief,  the  vital  question  was 
whether  Mr.  Wesley  should  have  power  to  control  in 
American  affairs.  The  Conference  settled  it  by  refus- 
ing to  set  apart  for  the  superintendency  the  persons 
be  had  named,  and  by  striking  out  the  paragraph  in 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789.      291 

which  the  Christmas  Conference  had  agreed  to  obey 
his  commands.  The  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
had  decided  that  it  would  govern  the  Church,  and 
that  neither  Mr.  Wesley  nor  any  other  individual  at 
home  or  abroad  should  rule  either  the  Conference  or 
the  Church  represented  by  the  Conference.  The  action 
was  an  ecclesiastical  Declaration  of  Independence. 

However,  there  was  not  universal  satisfaction  in 
America;  for  the  reverence  for  Mr.  Wesley  was 
very  great.  Dr.  Phrebus  tells  us :  "  This  was  a  time 
of  trial  with  many,  who  laid  it  to  heart.  It  was 
feared  that  part  would  continue  a  society,  or  form 
again  under  Mr.  Wesley,  independent  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  in  America.  Many  felt  like 
being  scattered,  when  the  shepherd  had  received  so 
many  blows  from  his  friends."  l 

Mr.  Snethen  says  the  removal  of  Wesley's  name 
from  the  Minutes,  as  it  was  commonly  termed,  "gave 
rise  to  feelings  of  a  very  unpleasant  nature.  Dr. 
Coke  actually  commenced  the  complaint  in  the  pul- 
pit, and  was  only  restrained  by  the  timely  and  reso- 
lute interference  of  some  of  the  more  judicious  of  the 
preachers." 

Nevertheless,  it  was  right  that  the  Church  should 
be  independent.  The  main  criticism  that  can  be 
made  upon  the  affair  is,  that  while  the  agreement  to 
obey  ought  to  have  been  annulled,  some  way  should 
have  been  found  to  give  Mr.  Wesley's  name  an 

i  William  Phoebus,  M.  D.,  Memoirs  of  Bishop  Richard  Whatcoat, 
New  York,  1828,  p.  67. 


292    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

honorable  place  as  the  founder  of  the  Methodists. 
Possibly  the  matter  might  have  been  managed 
more  pleasantly ;  but  the  assertion  of  independence 
resulted  in  increased  prosperity  to  the  Church, 
and  certainly  gave  it  a  right  ecclesiastical  status. 
The  Conference  is  now  supreme  in  form  as  well  as 
in  fact. 

In  1787  "Mr.  Asbury  reprinted  the  'General 
Minutes/  but  in  a  different  form  from  what  they  were 
before." l  By  the  "  General  Minutes "  Lee  meant 
what  we  now  understand  by  the  "Discipline"  of  the 
Church.  The  first  edition  issued  after  the  Christmas 
Conference  was  entitled,  "  Minutes  of  Several  Con- 
versations," etc.,  "  Composing  a  Form  of  Discipline," 
etc.  The  edition  of  1787  had  this  title:  "A  Form  of 
Discipline  for  the  Ministers,  Preachers,  and  Mem- 
bers of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America," 
etc.,  "Arranged  under  Proper  Heads,  and  Methodized 
in  a  More  Acceptable  and  Easy  Manner." 

In  this  "  Discipline  "  for  the  first  time  appears  the 
title  "bishop"  as  applied  to  a  superintendent  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Lee  says : 

"The  third  question  in  the  second  section,  and 
the  answer,  read  thus: 

" '  Quea.  Is  there  any  other  business  to  be  done  in  Con- 
ference ? 

"  '  Ant.  The  electing  and  ordaining  of  bishops,  elders,  and 
deacons.' 

"  This  was  the  first  time  that  our  superintendents 
ever  gave  themselves  the  title  of  bishops  in  the 

i  Lee's  History  of  Methodists.  1HJO,  p.  137. 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789.     293 

Minutes.  They  changed  the  title  themselves,  without 
the  consent  of  the  Conference  ;  and  at  the  next  Con- 
ference they  asked  the  preachers  if  the  word  ,bishop 
might  stand  in  the  Minutes — seeing  that  it  was  a 
Scripture  name,  and  the  meaning  of  the  word  bishop 
was  the  same  with  that  of  superintendent. 

"Some  of  the  preachers  opposed  the  alteration, 
and  wished  to  retain  the  former  title;  but  a  majority 
of  the  preachers  agreed  to  let  the  word  bishop  re- 
main ;  and  in  the  Annual  Minutes  for  the  next  year 
the  first  question  is,  'Who  are  the  bishops  of  our 
Church  for  the  United  States?' 

"  In  the  third  section  of  this  Form  of  Discipline, 
and  in  the  sixth  page,  it  is  said :  '  We  have  consti- 
tuted ourselves  into  an  Episcopal  Church  under  the 
direction  of  bishops,  elders,  deacons,  and  preachers, 
according  to  the  form  of  ordination  annexed  to  our 
prayer-book,  and  the  regulations  laid  down  in  this 
Form  of  Discipline/  From  that  time  the  name  of 
bishop  has  been  in  common  use  among  us,  both  in 
conversation  and  in  writing."1 

As  the  Minutes  for  1787  retain  the  title  superin- 
tendent and  do  not  use  the  word  bishop,  we  must  in- 
fer that  the  new  Discipline  was  issued  after  the  ad- 
journment of  the  Conference  of  that  year,  and  that 
""  the  next  Conference  "  that  allowed  the  new  title  to 
stand  was  the  Conference  of  the  following  year. 
We  must  also  infer  that  the  word  bishop,  which  ap- 
pears in  the  reprint  of  the  Annual  Minutes  for  1785, 
was  inserted  after  the  Discipline  of  1787  had  been 

»  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  MethoUisU,  Baltimore,  1810,  pp.  128. 129. 


294   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

issued.1  The  part  to  which  we  refer  reads  as  follows: 
"  We  thought  it  best  to  become  an  Episcopal  Church, 
making  the  episcopal  office  elective  and  the  elected 
superintendent  or  bishop  amenable  to  the  body  of  min- 
isters and  preachers."  2  Then  there  was  the  follow- 
ing foot-note:  "As  the  translators  of  our  version  of 
the  Bible  have  used  the  English  word  bishop  instead 
of  superintendent,  it  has  been  thought  by  us  that  it 
would  appear  more  Scriptural  to  adopt  their  term 
bishop."  3 

From  that  time  superintendent  and  bishop  have 
been  used  as  synonyms  in  the  Discipline  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  A  bishop  is  one  who 
oversees,  and  a  superintendent  is  an  overseer,  so  that 
the  words  have  practically  the  same  meaning.  At 
the  same  time  the  retention  of  the  word  superintend- 
ent tends  to  prevent  erroneous  ideas  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  episcopal  office,  for  though  the  word 
ordination  is  used  somewhat  uncertainly  by  a  few  of 
the  old  writers,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has 
always  stood  on  the  foundation  laid  by  Mr.  Wesley, 
that  "bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same  order," 
and  that  the  distinction  between  a  bishop  and  an 
ordinary  presbyter  is  one  of  office  and  not  of 
order. 4 


i  For  fuller  treatment  of  this  subject  see  Evolution  of  Episcopacy 
and  Organic  Methodism,  by  T.  B.  Neely,  D.  D.,  New  York,  1888,  pp.  316, 
317,  337-343. 

»  Minutes  of  Conferences,  1773-1813,  p.  51.       » Id.,  50. 

•See  resolution  reaffirming  the  doctrine,  Journal  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  1884,  p.  207;  Prefatory 
Note  to  Consecration  of  Bishops  In  Discipline ;  Neely's  Evol  utiou  of 
Episcopacy  and  Organic  Methodism. 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789.     295 

There  is  not  much  in  the  year  1788  that  bears 
directly  upon  our  theme,  but  we  should  quote  the 
remark  of  Lee,  that  "  when  the  Minutes  of  this 
year  were  printed,  the  condition  of  Dr.  Coke's  being 
a  bishop  '  when  in  the  United  States/  was  left  out, 
and  the  question  was  changed,  and  was  entered  thus: 
"  Q.  Who  are  the  bishops  of  our  Church  for  the 
United  States?"  "A.  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis 
Asbury." l  But  there  is  no  doubt  the  restriction 
remained  in  force,  though  the  words  were  not  carried 
forward  in  the  Minutes. 

In  1785  and  1786  the  question  in  the  Minutes 
was,  "Who  are  the  superintendents  of  our  Church?" 
and  the  answer  was,  "  Thomas  Coke,  Francis  Asbury ;" 
but  in  1787,  when  the  question  of  Dr.  Coke's  juris- 
diction when  not  in  the  United  States  was  decided, 
the  question  was  changed  so  that  it  read :  "  Who  are 
the  superintendents  of  our  Church  for  the  United 
States?"  and  the  answer  was,  "Thomas  Coke 
(when  present  in  the  States),  and  Francis  Asbury ;" 
and  now,  in  1788,  though  the  qualifying  clause  in 
regard  to  Bishop  Coke  is  omitted,  and  the  word 
bishops  is  substituted  for  superintendents,  the  limita-1 
tion  to  the  United  States  is  retained  in  the  form  of 
the  question :  "  Who  are  the  bishops  of  our  Church 
for  the  United  States?"2  They  were  bishops  for  the 
United  States,  and  the  implication  is  that  they  were 
to  exert  episcopal  functions  only  in  and  when  in  the 
United  States. 


i  Jesse  Lee ;  History  of  the  Methodists,  Baltimore,  1810,  p.  13& 
« Minutes  of  Conferences,  1773-1813,  p.  09. 


296   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

In  1789  there  were  eleven  Conferences,1  and 
fourteen  were  appointed  for  the  following  year. 

Referring  to  the  Conferences  of  1789,  Lee  re- 
marks that  "several  of  these  Conferences  were 
within  thirty  or  forty  miles  of  each  other,  which  was 
pretty  generally  disliked ;  but  at  that  time  the  bishop 
had  the  right  of  appointing  as  many  Conferences  as 
he  thought  proper,  and  at  such  times  and  places  as  he 
judged  best;  but  since  then  the  General  Conference 
fixes  the  number  of  Annual  Conferences  to  be  held 
in  each  year,  having  appointed  the  bounds  of  each  of 
them."2 

In  the  Conferences  of  1789  an  effort  was  made  to 
show  that  the  Church  did  not  intend  any  disrespect 
to  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  when  the  Baltimore  Con- 
ference of  1787  struck  out  of  the  Discipline  the 
agreement  to  obey  his  commands  in  matters  ecclesi- 
astical. The  Conferences  did  not  restore  the  an- 
nulled act,  but  they  went  as  far  as  they  could  to 
show  their  regard  for  the  father  of  Methodism. 
Lee  relates  that,  "  As  some  persons  had  complained 
of  our  receding  from  a  former  engagement  made  by 
some  of  our  preachers,  that  '  during  the  life  of 
Mr.  Wesley,  in  matters  belonging  to  Church  govern- 
ment, they  would  obey  his  commands/  and  as  others 
had  thought  that  we  did  not  pay  as  much  respect  to 
Mr.  Wesley  as  we  ought,  the  bishops  introduced  a 
question  in  the  Annual  Minutes,  which  was  as  follows: 

i  Lee's  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  140;  Minutes  of  Confer- 
ences, 1773-1813,  p.  76. 

'Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  140. 


THE  CONFERENCES  FROM  1785  TO  1789.     297 

" '  Ques.  Who  are  the  persons  that  exercise  the  episcopal 
office  in  the  Methodist  Church  in  Europe  and  America? 

"  'Am.  John  Wesley,  Thomas  Coke,  and  Francis  Ashury, 
by  regular  order  and  succession.' 

"The  next  question  was  asked  differently  from 
what  it  had  ever  been  in  any  of  the  former  Minutes, 
which  stands  thus: 

" '  Ques.  Who  had  been  elected  by  the  unanimous  suffrages 
of  the  General  Conference  to  superintend  the  Methodist  Con- 
nection in  America  ? 

" '  Ans.  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis  Asbury.' "  * 

So  they  recognized  John  Wesley  as  the  head  of 
Methodism,  not  only  in  Europe  but  also  in  America, 
and  also  recognized  him  as  exercising  the  episcopal 
office.  Wesley  himself  said  in  1785,  a  few  days  after 
he  had  ordained  ministers  for  Scotland  ;  "  I  firmly  be- 
lieve I  am  a  Scriptural  ixiaxoTioz?  as  much  as  any  man 
in  England,  or  in  Europe;"3  yet  he  called  himself  a 
presbyter,  and  never  had  any  higher  ordination  than 
that  of  an  elder.  He  was  an  overseer  of  the  Church, 
and  so  the  Minutes  of  1789  recognized  him  as  in  the 
episcopal  office,  and  as  performing  episcopal  functions; 
but  the  Conferences  took  care  in  the  next  question  to 
specify  that  Bishops  Coke  and  Asbury  were  to  super- 
intend in  America. 

Lee  says,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  first  answer 
contained  the  words,  "  by  regular  order  and  succes- 
sion;" but  they  do  not  appear  in  the  Minutes  as  re- 
printed in  1813,  either  for  1789  or  any  other  year. 


i  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  Hist,  of  the  Methodists,  Baltimore,  1810,  p.  142. 

*  Eplscopus,  s  bishop. 

•  Letter  of  John  Wesley  to  his  brother  Charles,  Methodist  Maga- 
zine, 1784,  p.  50. 

*-(/ 


298    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Lee  states  also  that  the  bishops  introduced  the 
questions  into  the  Annual  Minutes.  Probably  they 
did  prepare  the  Minutes  for  publication ;  but,  accord- 
ing to  Bishop  Coke,  the  subject  had  been  passed 
upon  by  the  several  Conferences  prior  to  the  insertion 
in  the  Minutes.  In  his  journal  he  says: 

"  On  the  9th  of  March  we  began  our  Conference 
in  Georgia.  Here  we  agreed  (as  we  have  ever  since 
in  each  of  the  Conferences)  that  Mr.  Wesley's  name 
should  be  inserted  at  the  head  of  our  Small  Annual 
Minutes  and  also  in  the  Form  of  Discipline, — in 
Small  Minutes,  as  the  fountain  of  our  episcopal 
office;  and  in  the  Form  of  Discipline,  as  the  father 
of  the  whole  work,  under  the  divine  guidance.  To 
this  all  the  Conferences  have  cheerfully  and  unani- 
mously agreed." 

It  may  be,  however,  that  the  Conferences  did  not 
pass  upon  the  exact  phraseology,  but  that  the  bishops, 
acting  as  editors,  were  governed  by  their  own  taste  in 
the  phrasing.1  Wesley's  name  in  this  new  relation 
appeared  in  the  Annual  Minutes  only  in  the  years  1789 
and  1790;  for,  before  the  Minutes  of  1791  were  issued, 
he  had  departed  this  life  after  a  most  extraordinary 
career  of  goodness,  usefulness,  and  the  highest  success; 
and  had  left  behind  him  an  influence  which,  instead 
of  diminishing  in  power,  seems  to  be  steadily  increas- 
ing, until  to-day  over  twenty-five  millions  of  people 
who  call  themselves  Methodists  revere  his  memory 
and  perpetuate  his  principles. 

'See  Evolution  of   Episcopacy  and  Organic  Methodism,  by  T.  B. 
Neely,  D.  D.,  pp.  345-355. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  COUNCIL. 

OINCE  the  General  Conference  or  organizing  Con- 
O  vention  of  1784,  there  had  been  no  single  gather- 
ing which  included  or  represented  all  the  preachers. 
Even  the  so-called  General  Conference  of  1787  at 
Baltimore  was  not  a  regularly  called  General  Confer- 
ence and  did  not  include  all  the  preachers,  though  it 
transacted  business  that  properly  belonged  to  a  Gen- 
eral Conference  or  to  the  whole  "body  of  ministers 
and  preachers."1 

With  the  exception  of  what  was  done  at  Balti- 
more alone  in  1787,  the  legislative  enactments  had 
passed  from  Conference  to  Conference  and  only  that 
which  was  agreed  to  by  all  the  Conferences  in  any 
given  year  became  a  law. 

This  passing  of  measures  around  the  Conferences 
was  by  some  deemed  an  awkward  and  uncertain 
method.  This  fact,  and  the  alleged  inconvenience  of 
assembling  all  the  preachers  in  one  place  to  hold  a 
General  Conference,  were  used  as  arguments  for  some 
new  arrangement  to  facilitate  the  work  of  legislation. 

So  Bangs  says:  "In  consequence  of  the  exten- 
sion of  the  work  on  every  hand,  spreading  over  such 
a  large  territory,  there  were  two  difficulties  which 

i  Minutes  of  Conferences,  1773-1813,  p.  BL 

299 


300    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

arose  in  the  way  of  proceeding  in  the  manner  they 
had  done  heretofore. 

"  1.  It  was  very  inconvenient  for  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Conference  to  assemble  together  in  one 
place  to  transact  their  business.  Hence,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  the  bishops  had  appointed  several  separate 
Conferences  for  the  dispatch  of  their  ordinary  affairs. 

"  2.  But  anything  which  was  done  in  these  separate 
Conferences  was  not  binding — except  simply  the  ordi- 
nations and  stationing  the  preachers — unless  sanctioned 
by  them  all.  And  as  this  could  rarely  be  expected, 
constituted  as  human  nature  is,  it  was  plainly  seen 
that  there  was  danger  of  their  falling  to  pieces,  or  of 
having  divers  administrations. 

"  To  provide  against  this  evil,  and  to  remedy  the 
inconvenience  above  mentioned,  it  was  determined 
this  year,  as  the  best  thing  that  could  be  devised,  to 
have  a  Council."1 

The  proposition  for  a  body  to  be  called  "The 
Council"  was  presented  in  1789.  Lee  tells  us  that 
"at  these  Conferences  in  1789,  a  plan  was  laid 
for  the  holding  [of]  a  Council.  The  bishops  said 
they  had  made  it  a  matter  of  prayer,  and  they  be- 
lieved the  present  plan  was  the  best  they  could 
think  of."2 

Asbury  doubtless  was  the  inventor  of  this  new 
plan.  In  his  journal  of  Friday,  February  20,  1789, 
he  says :  "  I  was  closely  employed  in  making  my 


*  Nathan  Bangs,  D.  D.,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
New  York,  1857,  10th  Ed.,  Vol.  I,  p.  302. 

*  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  149. 


THB  COUNCIL.  301 

plan,  and  arranging  the  papers  for  Conference."1 
Very  likely  the  plan  for  the  Council  was  included  in 
the  papers  he  was  arranging. 

Evidently  the  plan  did  not  emanate  from  the 
preachers.  From  Lee's  statement  it  is  plain  that  it  was 
an  episcopal  suggestion.  Indeed  when  it  was  presented 
it  met  with  objection  on  the  part  of  the  ministers. 

Lee  relates  that  "  after  some  opposition  had  been 
made  to  the  plan,  and  there  had  been  some  debating 
about  it,  a  majority  of  the  preachers  agreed  to  the 
following  plan,  which  was  published  in  the  Annual 
Minutes."  2  Asbury,  referring  to  the  Conference  in 
North  Carolina  that  year,  writes :  "  We  had  weighty 
matters  for  consideration  before  us."3  Quite  likely 
this  proposition  for  a  Council  was  in  his  judgment  one 
of  the  weighty  matters. 

Lee  states  that  the  plan  was  published  in  the  An- 
nual Minutes ;  but  it  does  not  appear  in  the  reprint 
published  in  1813. 

The  plan  for  the  Council  was  printed  in  the  fol- 
lowing form : 

"  Ques.  Whereas  the  holding  of  General  Conferences  on 
this  extensive  continent  would  be  attended  with  a  variety 
of  difficulties  and  many  inconveniences  to  the  work  of  God, 
and  whereas  we  judge  it  expedient  that  a  Council  should  be 
formed  of  chosen  men  out  of  the  several  districts  as  repre- 
sentatives of  the  whole  connection,  to  meet  at  stated  times ; 
in  what  manner  is  this  Council  to  be  formed,  what  shall  be 
its  powers,  and  what  farther  regulations  shall  be  made  con- 
cerning it? 

» Asbury '8  Journal,  1821,  Vol  II,  p.  844. 

•  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  149. 

»  Anbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  II,  p.  46. 


302    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"  Ant.  1.  Our  bishops  and  presiding  elders  shall  be  the 
members  of  this  Council ;  provided,  that  the  members  who  form 
the  Council  be  never  fewer  than  nine.  And  if  any  unavoid- 
able circumstance  prevent  the  attendance  of  a  presiding  elder 
at  the  Council,  he  shall  have  authority  to  send  another  elder 
out  of  his  own  district  to  represent  him ;  but  the  elder  so  sent 
by  thjs  absenting  presiding  elder  shall  have  no  seat  in  the 
Council  without  the  approbation  of  the  bishop,  or  bishops,  and 
presiding  elders  present.  And  if,  after  the  above-mentioned 
provisions  are  complied  with,  any  unavoidable  circumstance 
or  any  contingencies  reduce  the  number  to  less  than  nine, 
the  bishop  shall  immediately  summon  such  elders  as  do  not 
preside,  to  complete  the  number. 

"  2.  These  shall  have  authority  to  mature  everything  they 
shall  judge  expedient. 

"(1)  To  preserve  the  general  union.  (2)  To  render  and  pre- 
serve the  external  form  of  worship  similar  in  all  our  societies 
through  the  continent.  (3)  To  preserve  the  essentials  of  the 
Methodist  doctrines  and  discipline  pure  and  uncorrupted. 
(4)  To  correct  all  abuses  and  disorders ;  and,  lastly,  they  are 
authorized  to  mature  everything  they  may  see  necessary  for 
the  good  of  the  Church,  and  for  the  promoting  and  improv- 
ing our  colleges  and  plan  of  education. 

"  3.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  nothing  shall  be  received 
as  the  resolution  of  the  Council,  unless  it  be  assented  to  unan- 
imously by  the  Council;  and  nothing  so 'assented  to  by  the 
Council  shall  be  binding  in  any  district  till  it  has  been  agreed 
upon  by  a  majority  of  the  Conference  which  is  held  for  that 
district. 

"4.  The  bishops  shall  have  authority  to  summon  the 
Council  to  meet  at  such  times  and  places  as  they  shall  judge 
expedient. 

"  5.  The  first  Council  shall  be  held  at  Cokesbury,  on  the 
first  day  of  next  December." 

Such  was  the  provision,  which  it  was  promised 
would  accomplish  great  good. 

The  first  meeting  of  the  Council,  though  originally 
ordered  for  Cokesbury,  was  held  at  Baltimore,  in  the 


THE  COUNCIL.  303 

month  of  December,  1789.     Of  that  session,  Asbury 
makes  the  following  mention  in  his  journal: 

"Thursday,  December  4.  Our  Council  was  seated,  consist- 
ing of  the  following  persons,  viz. :  Richard  Ivey,  from  Georgia; 
R.  Ellis,  Soutli  Carolina;  E.  Morris,  North  Carolina;  Phil. 
Bruce,  North  District  of  Virginia;  James  O'Kelly,  South 
District  of  Virginia;  L.  Green,  Ohio;  Nelson  Reid,  West- 
ern Shore  of  Maryland;  J.  Everett,  Eastern  Shore;  John 
Dickins,  Pennsylvania;  J.  O.  Cromwell,  Jersey;  and  Free- 
born  Garrettson,  New  York.  All  our  business  was  done  in 
love  and  unanimity.  The  concerns  of  the  college  were  well 
attended  to,  as  also  the  printing  business.  We  formed  some 
resolutions  relative  to  economy  and  union,  and  others  con- 
cerning the  funds  for  the  relief  of  our  suffering  preachers 
on  the  frontiers.  We  rose  on  the  eve  of  Wednesday  follow- 
ing. During  our  sitting  we  had  preaching  every  night ;  some 
few  souls  were  stirred  up,  and  others  converted.  The  pru- 
dence of  some  had  stilled  the  noisy  ardor  of  our  young  peo- 
ple, and  it  was  difficult  to  rekindle  the  fire.  I  collected  about 
£28  for  the  poor,  suffering  preachers  in  the  West.  We  spent 
one  day  in  speaking  our  own  experiences,  and  giving  an  ac- 
count of  the  progress  and  state  of  the  work  of  God  in  our 
several  districts.  A  spirit  of  union  pervaded  the  whole  body, 
producing  blessed  effects  and  fruits." l 

Sherman  states  that  "the  Council  met  at  Balti- 
more, December  1,  1789,  and  framed  a  constitution, 
giving  to  that  body  powers  similar  to  those  of  the 
General  Conference."3  As  Sherman  remarks,  "The 
plan  appears  to  have  been  warmly  cherished  by  As- 
bury," yet  it  was  exceedingly  faulty. 

Thus  Bangs,  adopting  Lee's  suggestion,  points  to 
one  provision  in  this  plan  "  which  went  to  nullify 
their  proceedings,  and  frustrate  the  very  design  for 

»Asbiiry 'a  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  II,  p.  69. 

•  David  Sherman,  D.  I).,  History  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  New  York,  Sd  Ed.,  1890,  p.  297. 


304   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

which  the  Council  was  constituted.  It  was  in  these 
words:  'Nothing  unanimously  assented  to  by  the 
Council  shall  be  binding  in  any  district  till  it  has 
been  agreed  upon  by  a  majority  of  the  Conference 
which  is  held  for  that  district.'  Such  a  regulation, 
every  one  must  perceive,  tended  to  a  dissolution  of 
the  body  by  introducing  dissensions;  for  it  could  not 
be  expected  that  so  many  independent  bodies,  acting 
/separately,  should  entirely  agree  in  many  important 
particulars." l 

This  device  was  a  dangerous  centralization  of 
power.  The  Council  was  composed  of  the  bishops 
and  the  presiding  elders,  who  were  appointed  by  the 
bishops;  so  that  the  bishops  really  made  the  Council, 
tt  was  a  partial  abandonment  of  the  principle  of  self- 
government"  by  the  ministers  in  the  Conferences,  and 
the  placing  of  it  in  the  hands  of  the  bishops.  It  was 
practically  a  change  from  Conference  government,  and 
a  retracing  of  steps  toward  personal  government, 
from  which  the  Conference  had  broken  away ;  and 
Asbury,  the  very  man  who  had  objected  to  the  con- 
tinued personal  government  of  Wesley,  had  brought 
about  that  which  was  practically  a  personal  govern- 
ment of  his  own.  He  may  not  have  seen  it  in  that 
light,  but  that  is  what  it  amounted  to ;  for,  as  Sher- 
man states,  the  plan  placed  "the  legislative  powers 
in  the  hands  of  one  man  and  his  aids  and  ap- 
pointees."2 

1  Nathan  Bangs,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  New 
York,  Vol.  1. 10th  Ed.,  1857,  p.  805. 

» David  Sherman,  History  of  the  Discipline,  New  York,  3d  Ed., 
1880,  p.  297. 


THE  COUNCIL  305 

That  the  ministers  in  the  Conferences  consented 
to  try  this  scheme  to  make  government  easy,  demon- 
strates the  great  personal  influence  of  Asbury;  but 
even  wise  men  sometimes  make  mistakes. 

The  plan  was  a  partial  reversion  from  Conference 
government  to  personal  government.  This  was  soon 
recognized,  and  protests  came  in  from  every  side.  It 
tended  to  undo  what  had  been  done.  It  was  a  retro- 
grade movement,  which  soon  stirred  up  suck  a  feeling 
that  it  had  to  be  abandoned. 

Complaints  began  to  arise  against  Asbury's  power. 
Only  a  few  weeks  after  the  adjournment  of  the  first 
Council,  Asbury,  while  in  Virginia,  makes,  under  date 
of  January  12,  1790,  the.following  entry: 

"From  Mabry's  we  came  to  Brunswick  quarterly  meet- 
ing, where  there  was  a  considerable  quickening  and  manifes- 
tation of  the  Lord's  power.  We  had  a  good  meeting  at 
Roanoke  Chapel ;  I  rejoice  that  the  society  had  increased  to 
more  than  one  hundred  souls. 

"I  received  a  letter  from  the  presiding  elder  of  (his  dis- 
trict, James  O'Kelly.  He  makes  heavy  complaints  of  my 
power,  and  bids  me  stop  for  one  year,  or  he  must  use  his  in- 
fluence against  me.  Power!  power! — there  is  not  a  vote  given 
in  a  Conference  in  which  the  presiding  elder  has  not  greatly 
the  advantage  of  me.  All  the  influence  I  am  to  gain  over  a 
company  of  young  men  in  a  district  must  be  done  in  three 
weeks;  the  greater  part  of  them,  perhaps,  are  seen  by  me 
only  at  Conference,  whilst  the  presiding  elder  has  had  them 
with  him  all  the  year,  and  has  the  greatest  opportunity  of 
gaining  influence.  This  advantage  may  be  abused — let  thn 
bishops  look  to  it;  but  who  has  the  power  to  lay  an  embargo 
on  me,  and  to  make  of  none  effect  the  decision  of  ail  the  Con- 
ferences of  the  Union?"1 


>  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  II,  p.  62. 


306    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

The  Council  became  a  topic  for  discussion  in  the 
Conferences  of  1790.  Thus,  under  date  of  Monday, 
February  15,  1790,  Asbury,  referring  to  the  Confer- 
ence at  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  makes  the  follow- 
ing entry:  "Our  Conference  began;  our  business  was 
conducted  in  great  peace  and  love.  The  business  of 
the  Council  came  before  us,  and  it  was  determined 
that  the  concerns  of  the  college  and  the  printing 
should  be  left  with  the  Council  to  act  decisively  upon ; 
but  that  no  new  canons  should  be  made,  nor  the  old 
altered,  without  the  consent  of  the  Conference,  and 
that  whatever  was  done  on  this  head  should  come  in 
the  shape  of  advice  only."1 

This  indicates  that  some  .modification  was  made  in 
the  methods  of  the  Council.  Referring  to  a  Confer- 
ence held  in  North  Carolina  in  June  1790,  Bishop 
Asbury  says,  under  date  of  June  1st:  "Our  business 
was  much  matured,  the  critical  concern  of  the  Coun- 
cil understood,  and  the  plan,  with  its  amendments, 
adopted." 2  At  the  Conference  in  Virginia  the  proj- 
ect did  not  move  so  smoothly.  Under  date  of  June 
16,  1790,  Bishop  Asbury  remarks :  "  Our  Conference 
began;  all  was  peace  until  the  Council  was  mentioned. 
The  young  men  appear  to  be  entirely  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  elders,  and  turned  it  out  of  doors.  I 
was  weary  and  felt  but  little  freedom  to  speak  on  the 
subject.  The  business  is  to  be  explained  to  every 
preacher;  and  then  it  must  be  carried  through  the 
Conferences  twenty-four  times;  t.  e.}  through  all  the 
Conferences  for  two  years."* 


l  Asbury 's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  II,  p.  66.        •  Td.  p.  71        * IbUL 


THE  COUNCIL.  307 

On  the  26th  of  August,  1790,  he  writes:  "To 
conciliate  the  minds  of  our  brethren  in  the  South 
District  of  Virginia,  who  are  restless  about  the  Coun- 
cil, 1  wrote  their  leader  informing  him  'that  I  would 
take  my  seat  in  Council  as  another  member,'  and  in 
that  point,  at  least,  waive  the  claims  of  episcopacy ; 
yea,  I  would  lie  down  and  be  trodden  upon,  rather 
than  knowingly  injure  one  soul."  l 

September  14th,  he  says:  "Set  out,  and  next  day 
reached  Duck  Creek  Cross-roads,  where  we  held  our 
Conference  for  the  Eastern  Shore  of  Maryland  and 
Delaware.  One  or  two  of  our  brethren  felt  the  Vir- 
ginia fire  about  the  question  of  the  Council,  but  all 
things  came  into  order,  and  the  Council  obtained."  2 
On  the  28th  of  the  same  month  a  Conference  was 
held  at  Burlington,  New  Jersey.  Referring  to  it 
Bishop  Asbury  remarks:  "The  session  has  been  in 
great  peace ;  harmony  has  prevailed,  and  the  Council 
has  been  unanimously  adopted."3 

The  second  session  of  the  Council  was  held  De- 
cember 1,  1790.  Of  this  Bishop  Asbury  makes  this 
record:  "  The  Council  was  seated  in  Philip  Rogers's 
chamber  in  Baltimore.  After  some  explanation,  we 
all  agreed  that  we  had  a  right  to  manage  the  tem- 
poral concerns  of  the  Church  and  college  decisively; 
and  to  recommend  to  the  Conferences,  for  ratifica- 
tion, whatever  we  judged  might  be  advantageous  to 
the  spiritual  well-being  of  the  whole  body.  For  the 
sake  of  union,  we  declined  sending  out  any  recom- 

l  Bishop  Asbury'*  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  11,  p.  82.  >  Id.,  p.  83. 

•Id.,  p.  84. 


308    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

men'datory  propositions:  we  had  great  peace  and 
union  in  all  our  laborers.  What  we  have  done  the 
Minutes  will  show."  * 

On  Thursday,  the  9th,  he  writes :  "  The  Council 
arose  after  advising  a  loan  of  £1,000  payable  in  two 
years,  for  Cokesbury  [College] ;  and  giving  direc- 
tions for  proper  books  to  be  printed."2 

This  was  the  second  and  last  session  of  the  Coun- 
cil. Another  session  was  appointed  for  1791,  but  the 
dissatisfaction  was  so  great  that  it  never  convened. 

The  Rev.  Jesse  Lee  has  preserved  for  us  a  very 
full  account  of  what  was  done  at  the  two  meetings  of 
the  Council.  As  the  Minutes  do  not  appear  to  be 
accessible,  the  portion  preserved  by  him  has  great 
value  while  his  comments  furnish  very  interesting 
reading. 

That  we  may  have  the  whole  matter  as  it  ap- 
peared to  a  contemporary  we  quote  just  as  he  gives  it 
in  his  history.  He  says : 

"  This  plan  for  having  a  Council  was  entirely  new,  and 

exceedingly  dangerous.    A  majority  of  the  preachers  voted  in 

favor  of  it,  but  they  were  soon  sensible  that  the  plan  would 

not  answer  the    purpose  for  which  it  was  intended.      The 

Council  was  to  be  composed  of  the  bishops  and  the  presiding 

elders.     The  presiding  elders  were  appointed,  changed,  and 

put  out  of  office  by  the  bishop,  and  just  when  he  pleased ;  of 

course,  the  whole  of  the  Council  were  to  consist  of  the  bishops 

and  a  few  other  men  of  their  own  choice  or  appointing. 

"One  dangerous  clause  in  the  plan  was  this: 

"  Nothing  unanimously  assented  to  by  the  Council  shall 

be  binding  in  any  district  till  it  has  been  agreed  upon  by  a 

majority  of  the  Conference  which  is  held  for  that  district.    If, 

then,  one  district  should  agree  to   any  important  point,  and 

»  Bishop  Asbury 's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  II,  p.  88.  » Id.,  p.  89. 


THE  COUNCIL  309 

another  district  should  reject  it,  the  union  between  the 
two  districts  would  be  broken,  and  in  process  of  time  our 
United  Societies  would  be  thrown  into  disorder  and  confusion. 
This  I  saw  clearly  when  the  plan  was  first  proposed,  and  to 
which  I  then  objected. 

"  In  the  latter  part  of  this  year,  the  Council  met  according 
to  appointment,  but  not  at  the  } place  where  they  were  to  meet. 
The  Annual  Minutes  said  they  should  meet  at  Colusbury. 
But  they  met  in  Baltimore. 

"  I  will  here  transcribe  the  whole  of  the  Minutes  of  the 
Council. 

" '  The  Proceedings  of  the  Bishop  and  Presiding  Elders  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Chuxch,  in  Council  assembled  at  Baltimore,  on 
the  first  day  of  December,  1789. 

"'The  following  members  which  formed  the  Council  were 

present: 

" '  FRANCIS  ASBURY,  Bishop. 

" '  Elders. 

" '  Richard  Ivey,  Nelson  Reid, 

Reuben  Ellis,  Joseph  Everett, 

Edward  Morris,  John  Dickins, 

James  O'Kelly,  James  O.  Cromwell, 

Philip  Bruce,  Freeborn  Garrettson.' 
Lemuel  Green, 

"  After  having  spent  one  hour  in  prayer  to  Almighty  God 
for  his  direction  and  blessing,  they  then  unanimously  agreed, 
that  a  General  Conference  of  the  bishops,  ministers,  and 
preachers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  on  the  Conti- 
nent of  America,  would  be  attended  with  a  variety  of  difficul- 
ties, with  great  expense  and  loss  of  time,  as  well  as  many  in- 
conveniences to  the  work  of  God.  And,  as  it  is  almost  the 
unanimous  judgment  of  the  ministers  and  preachers  that  it  is 
highly  expedient  there  should  be  a  general  Council  formed  of 
the  most  experienced  elders  in  the  connection,  who,  for  the 
future,  being  elected  by  ballot  in  every  Conference,  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  bishop,  shall  be  able  to  represent  the  several  Con- 
ferences and  districts  in  the  United  States  of  America,  they 
therefore  concluded  that  such  a  Council  should  be  so  ap- 
pointed, and  convened. 


310  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

'"The  Council  then  proceeded  to  form  the  following  con- 
stitution, to  wit: 

44  4  The  aforesaid  Council,  when  assembled  at  the  time  and 
place  appointed  by  the  bishop,  shall  have  power  to  mature 
and  resolve  on  all  things  relative  to  the  spiritual  and  temporal 
interests  of  the  Church,  viz. : 

41  '1.  To  render  the  time  and  form  of  public  worship  as 
similar  as  possible  through  all  their  congregations. 

444  2.  To  preserve  the  general  union  of  the  ministers, 
preachers,  and  people  in  the  Methodist  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline. 

44  4  3.  To  direct  and  manage  all  the  printing  which  may  be 
done,  from  time  to  time,  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  Meth- 
odist Church  in  America. 

444  4.  To  conduct  the  plan  of  education,  and  manage  all 
matters  which  may,  from  time  to  time,  pertain  to  any  college 
or  houses  built,  or  about  to  be  built,  as  the  property  of  the 
Methodist  connection. 

44  4  5.  To  remove,  or  receive  and  appoint  the  salary  of  any 
tutors,  from  time  to  time,  employed  in  any  seminary  of  learn- 
ing belonging  to  the  said  Connection. 

"  '  6.  In  the  intervals  of  the  Council,  the  bishop  shall  have 
power  to  act  in  all  contingent  occurrences  relative  to  the  print- 
ing business,  or  the  education  and  economy  of  the  college. 

44  4  7.  Nine  members,  and  no  less,  shall  be  competent  to 
form  a  Council,  which  may  proceed  to  business. 

44  48.  No  resolution  shall  be  formed  in  such  a  Council  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  bishop  and  two-thirds  of  the  members 
present.1 

4'  After  the  Council  had  finished  the  constitution  as  above, 
they  then  proceeded,  with  perfect  unanimity,  to  form  the 
following  resolutions: 

44  4 1.  Every  resolution  of  the  first  Council  shall  be  put  to 
vote  in  each  Conference,  and  shall  not  be  adopted  unless  it 
obtains  a  majority  of  the  different  Conferences.  But  every 
resolution  which  is  received  by  a  majority  of  the  several  Con- 
ferences shall  be  received  by  every  member  of  each  Conference. 

44  4  2.  Public  worship  shall  commence  at  10  o'clock  on  the 
Lord's-day,  in  all  places  where  we  have  societies  and  regular 
preaching,  if  it  be  practicable;  and  if  it  be  not,  at  11  o'clock. 


COUNCIL.  311 

"'3.  The  exercise  of  public  worship  on  the  Lord's-day 
shall  be  singing,  prayer,  and  reading  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
with  exhortation  or  reading  a  sermon,  in  the  absence  of  a 
preacher ;  and  the  officiating  person  shall  be  appointed  by  the 
elder,  deacon,  or  traveling  preacher,  for  the  time  being. 

"  '4.  For  the  future  no  more  houses  shall  be  built  for  public 
worship  without  the  consent  and  direction  of  the  Conference 
and  presiding  elder  of  the  district,  unless  a  house  should  be 
built  under  the  direction  of  the  presiding  elder  and  the  travel- 
ing preachers  in  the  circuit,  and  finished  without  the  least 
debt  remaining  on  it. 

" '  5.  It  is  required  that  all  the  parents  and  guardians  of 
independent  scholars  in  Cokesbury  College  may  punctually 
pay  for  the  students'  tuition  and  board,  on  or  before  the  first 
day  of  December,  in  every  year,  as  none  will  be  continued 
there  more  than  one  year  on  credit,  but  will  be  immediately 
sent  home  in  case  of  non-payment.  And  for  the  future,  at 
least  one-fourth  of  the  price  of  twelve  months'  board  and 
tuition  must  be  sent  with  every  scholar  who  comes  from  the 
adjacent  States,  and  half  the  said  price  with  every  scholar  who 
comes  from  any  distant  State. 

" '  6.  Every  minister,  preacher,  and  private  member  shall 
be  permitted,  and  is  hereby  earnestly  requested,  to  devise 
some  means,  and  either  bring  or  send  his  proposals  to  the 
next  Council,  for  the  purpose  of  laying  some  scheme  for  re- 
lieving our  dear  brethren  who  labor  in  the  extremities  of  the 
work,  and  do  not  receive  more  than  six,  eight,  ten,  twelve,  or 
fifteen  pounds  per  annum. 

"'7.  Every  deacon  shall  be  three  years  in  a  state  of  pro- 
bation before  he  can  be  elected  to  the  eldership. 

"  '  8.  Considering  the  weight  of  the  Connection,  the  concerns 
of  the  college,  and  the  printing  business,  it  is  resolved,  that  an- 
other Council  shall  be  convened  at  Baltimore  on  the  first  day 
of  December,  1790.' 

"  I  have  thought  proper  to  insert  the  Minutes  of  the  first 
Council  at  full  length,  that  the  plan,  and  the  whole  business 
thereof,  may  be  understood  in  future ;  and  that  the  reason  may 
be  known  why  it  was  opposed,  and  why  it  was  so  soon  given 
up  and  rejected,  both  by  the  Methodist  preachers  and 
people. 


312   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"  When  the  Council  was  first  proposed,  the  preachers  in 
each  district  were  to  have  the  power  to  reject  or  retain  the 
measures  which  had  been  adopted  by  the  Council.'  But  when 
the  proceedings  of  the  Council  came  out,  they  had  changed 
the  plan,  and  determined  that  if  a  majority  of  the  preachers 
in  the  different  districts  should  approve  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  Council,  it  should  then  be  binding  on  every  preacher  in 
each  district. 

"  The  number  of  Conferences  were  increased,  so  that  but 
a  small  number  of  preachers  could  collect  at  one  place.  There 
were  fourteen  Conferences  appointed  for  the  next  year. 

"In  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1790,  the  second  and  last 
Council  met,  and  their  Minutes  began  as  follows : 

" '  Minutes,  taken  at  a  Council  of  the  Bishop  and  Delegated 
Elders  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  held  at  Baltimore,  in 
the  State  of  Maryland,  December  1,  1790. 

"'  Q.  What  members  are  present? 

" 4  A.  Francis  Asbury,  bishop ;  Freeborn  Garrettson,  Francit 
Poythress,  Nelson  Reid,  John  Dickins,  Philip  Bruce,  Isaac  Smith, 
Thomas  Bowen,  James  0.  Cromwell,  Joseph  Everett,  and  Charles 
Conn  away. l 

11 '  Q.  What  power  do  this  the  Council  consider  themselves 
invested  with  by  their  electors  ? 

" '  A.  First  they  unanimously  consider  themselves  invested 
with  full  power  to  act  decisively  in  all  temporal  matters.  And 
secondly,  to  recommend  to  the  several  Conferences  any  new 
canons,  or  alterations  to  be  made  in  any  old  ones. 

"'Q.  What  can  be  done  to  promote  the  book- business? 

" '  Q.  Who  are  appointed  as  traveling  book  stewards  by 
the  order  of  the  Council? 

" '  Q.  How  shall  such  stewards  be  appointed  for  the 
future  ? 

" '  Q.  What  can  be  done  to  procure  religious  experiences 
and  letters  for  the  Armmian  Magazine  t 

"  '  Q.  Who  shall  form  such  a  committee ;  that  is,  to  ex- 
amine letters  and  written  experiences  for  the  Magazine  f 

" '  Q.  What  books  shall  be  published  in  the  course  of  the 
two  following  years? 


"The  names  In  Italics  were  members  of  the  first.  Council. 


THE  COUNCIL.  313 

M '  Q.  Shall  we  publish  Mr.  Wesley's  four  volumes  of  ser- 
mons before  the  sitting  of  the  next  Council  ? 

" '  Q.  What  shall  be  done  to  support  the  credit  and  finish 
the  building  of  Cokesbury  College  f 

" '  Q.  Can  anything  more  be  done  for  Cokesbury  College  f 

11 '  Q.  What  is  the  expense  of  the  charity  boys  for  the 
present  year  in  Cokesbury  College  f 

" '  Q.  Shall  the  bishop  have  power  to  draw  any  money  out 
of  the  book  profits,  for  the  partial  supply  of  any  Church  or 
preacher  that  may  be  in  pressing  need  ? 

" '  A.  By  the  recommendation  of  the  elder  of  a  district,  the 
bishop  may  draw  as  far  as  three  pounds  per  month,  but  no 
farther. 

" '  Q.  Who  are  the  present  teachers  in  Cokesbury  College  f 

"'  A.  Jacob  Hall,  A.  M.,  Patrick  M'Closkey,  and  Charles  Tile, 

" '  Q.  Can  anything  be  done  to  prevent  the  students  of 
Cokesbury  College  from  trafficking  or  exchanging  their  property 
with  each  other? 

" '  Q.  As  many  of  our  Churches  are  unfinished  and  in 
debt,  and  our  grave-yards  unfenced,  what  can  be  done  for 
their  relief  ? 

"  '  Q.  As  the  presiding  elders  have  only  a  partial  supply  of 
quarterly  meetings,  to  whom  shall  .they  present  their  annual 
accounts  ? 

" '  Q.  As  the  bishop  is  not  supplied  from  the  circuits,  to 
tvhom  shall  he  render  his  account? 

"  '  A.  To  the  Council. 

" '  Q.  What  shall  be  done,  if  an  opening  should  be  made, 
to  settle  a  teacher  or  preacher  among  any  of  the  Indian 
Nations  f 

" '  Q.  What  advice  shall  we  give  our  brethren  who  desire 
to  erect  district  schools  ? 

" '  Q.  What  can  be  done  toward  the  relief  of  our  preachers, 
who  can  not  obtain  the  salaries  allowed  by  our  canons  ? 

"  '  Q.  Who  shall  be  appointed  to  superintend  the  economy 
of  the  college  in  the  recess  of  the  Council  and  the  absence  of 
the  bishop? 

"  'A.  Nelson  Reid,  John  Dickins,  and  Joseph  Everett.    . 

" '  Q.  Who  shall  be  appointed  as  factors  to  supply  the  col- 
lege with  whatever  necessaries  may  be  wanted  ? 

21 


314    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"  'A.  William  Wood  and  John  Brevitt. 

"  'Q.  Who  shall  be  appointed  to  inspect  the  factors'  bills 
and  make  their  payments  ? 

"  1A.  Philip  Rogers,  Jesse  Hollingsworlh,  Samuel  Owings,  and 
Emanuel  Kent. 

" '  Q.  As  we  think  it  primitive,  prudent,  and  decent,  that 
men  and  women  should  sit  apart  in  public  congregations, 
what  can  be  done  to  promote  it  amongst  our  people  ? 

" '  Q.  What,  money  is  now  in  hand  belonging  to  the 
preachers'  fund? 

"  '  A.  One  hundred  and  sixty-eight  'pounds,  one  shilling, 
and  four  pence. 

" '  Q.  What  can  be  done  to  secure  money,  that  may  be 
collected  for  this  purpose,  in  future  f 

" '  Q.  How  shall  money  be  drawn  from  time  to  time  out 
of  the  fund  for  the  relief  of  distressed  preachers? 

" '  Q.  As  the  bishop  complains  that  some  preachers 
look  to  him  for  a  supply  of  their  deficiencies,  what  is  the 
judgment  of  the  Council  in  this  case? 

" '  Q.  As  some  of  the  members  of  Council  complain  of 
long  and  expensive  journeys,  what  can  be  done  for  their  as- 
sistance in  future? 

" '  Q.  When  and  where  shall  the  next  Council  be  held  ? 

" '  A.  At  Cokesbury  College  or  Baltimore,  on  the  1st  day  of 
December,  1792.' 

"  There  were  thirty-one  questions  in  these  Minutes,  which  I 
have  stated  in  the  same  form  and  order  in  which  they  stood  in 
the  Minutes  of  the  Council.  I  have  also  given  a  few  of  the  an- 
swers ;  but,  the  answers  being  of  little  or  no  consequence  to 
the  people  in  general,  I  have  omitted  the  greater  part  of 
them ;  and  only  inserted  such  as  might  perhaps  be  satisfac- 
tory to  the  reader.  I  have  thought  proper  to  publish  all  the 
questions,  that  it  may  be  seen  in  future  in  what  manner  the 
Council  proceeded. 

"This  Council  determined  to  have  another  meeting  two 
years  from  that  .time ;  but  their  proceedings  gave  such  dissatis- 
faction to  our  Connection  in  general,  and  to  some  of  the  trav- 
eling preachers  in  particular,  that  they  were  forced  to  aban- 
don the  plan ;  and  there  has  never  since  been  a  meeting  of 
the  kind. 


THE  COUNCIL.  315 

"When  the  first  Council  met,  I  wrote  them  a  letter  in 
which  I  stated  my  objections  to  their  plan,  and  pointed  out 
the  difficulties  that  it  would  produce,  and  contended  for  a 
General  Conference;  which  plan  was  disapproved  of  by  all 
the  Council. 

"  The  most  violent  opposer  of  the  Council  among  the 
traveling  preachers  was  at  first  one  of  that  body ;  namely, 
James  O'Kelly.  While  he  was  at  the  first  Council  he  appeared 
to  be  united  to  the  plan  and  to  the  members;  but  after  he  re- 
turned to  Virginia,  he  exclaimed  bitterly  against  the  proceedings 
and  against  what  he  himself  had  done  in  the  business.  He  re- 
iused  to  have  anything  at  all  to  do  with  the  second  Council. 

"  The  supposition  respecting  this  sudden  change  in  the  old 
man,  and  his  hasty  conduct  in  condemning  what  he  had  just 
before  sanctioned,  was,  that  he  went  to  the  first  Council 
with  some  expectation  of  being  promoted  in  the  Church ; 
but,  finding  himself  disappointed,  he  returned  home  greatly 
mortified. 

"  We  have  sufficient  reason  to  believe  that  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Council  was  very  injurious  to  the  Methodist  Con- 
nection. The  plan  produced  such  difficulties  in  the  minds  of 
the  preachers  and  the  people,  and  brought  on  such  opposition, 
that  it  was  hard  to  reconcile  them  one  to  another.  Nothing 
would  or  could  give  satisfaction  to  the  preachers  but  the  call- 
ing together  all  the  traveling  preachers  in  a  General  Confer- 
ence; to  which,  after  some  time,  the  bishop  consented."1 

Commenting  on  the  adoption  of  the  Council  idea, 
Dr.  Bangs  observes: 

"Though  the  preachers  generally  voted  for  the  plan 
when  it  was  submitted  to  them  by  the  bishops,  dissatisfaction 
soon  sprang  up  in  their  minds  in  reference  to  it,  on  account  of 
its  being  dangerous,  as  they  thought,  to  their  liberties.  It 
was  contended  that  as  the  Council  was  composed  of  the 
bishops  and  presiding  elders,  and  as  the  latter  were  appointed 
by  the  bishops  and  changed  at  their  pleasure,  it  was  vir- 
tually concentrating  all  the  authority  of  the  Church  in  the 
hands  of  the  bishops,  and  thus  creating  an  aristocracy  of 

i  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  pp.  150-159. 


316     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

power  incompatible  with  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  en- 
tire body."1 

Thomas  Ware,  who  was  one  of  the  active  preach- 
ers of  that  day,  and  was  opposed  to  the  Council 
from  the  beginning,  tells  us  that  "  The  loss  of  time 
in  attending  the  General  Conference  was  great;  to 
which,  if  we  add  the  expense  and  fatigue,  we  may 
see  the  motives  that  influenced  the  bishops  to  pro- 
pose a  Council.  That  these  were  weighty  reasons, 
none  could  deny ;  and  an  unwillingness  to  oppose 
Bishop  Asbury  led  a  majority  of  the  preachers  to 
yield  so  far  as  to  permit  the  experiment  to  be  made. 
A  minority,  however,  opposed  it  from  the  first ;  and 
I  happened  to  be  one  of  that  number.  I  had  ven- 
tured to  say,  if  there  must  be  a  Council  to  consist  of 
bishops  and  presiding  elders,  the  latter  should  be 
chosen,  not  by  the  bishops,  but  by  the  Conferences, 
and  everything  done  in  Council  should  be  by  a  sim- 
ple majority.  Much  as  I  respected  our  superintend- 
ents, for  one,  I  could  not  consent  to  give  them  a 
negative  on  all  future  proceedings.  I  was  not  dis- 
posed to  charge  the  projectors  of  the  plan  with  any 
other  than  the  purest  motives.  Others,  however,  I 
was  persuaded  would  do  so.  And,  on  the  whole,  it 
was  better,  in  my  opinion,  to  abandon  the  Council 
altogether.  He  [Bishop  Asbury]  then  gave  me  some 
severe  rebukes;  but,  nevertheless,  appointed  me  a 
presiding  elder.  The  experiment  of  a  Council  was 


> Nathan  Bangs,  D.  D.,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Chinch. 
.  Y.,  1867, 10th  Ed.,  VoL  I,  pp.  304,  805. 


THE  COUNCIL.  317 

made  ;  but  after  its  second  meeting,  it  was  abandoned 
forever." l  • 

In  two  years  the  experiment  demonstrated  its  un- 
acceptability,  and  its  promoters  were  glad  to  let  it 
drop  out  of  sight.  As  Sherman  observes:  "The 
Council  had  become  so  generally  odious  to  preachers 
and  people  that  Asbury  himself  requested  that  it 
might  be  named  no  more.  Highly  and  justly  as  they 
esteemed  Asbury,  they  were  not  prepared  to  make 
him  a  pope." 2 

Thus  the  Council  expired  and  was  buried ;  but  in 
history  it  lives  to  illustrate  the  fact  that  in  all  gov- 
ernments two  forces  are  in  action — one  toward  a  cen- 
tralization of  power,  and  another  toward  a  diffusion 
of  power.  The  first  tends  to  despotism ;  the  latter,  to 
anarchy.  In  democracies  there  is  a  tendency  to  con- 
centration ;  in  despotisms  there  is  a  tendency  to  disso- 
lution. Safety  is  in  the  mean  between  the  extremes. 

In  Church  as  well  as  in  State  there  must  be  eter- 
nal vigilance  that  liberty  may  be  preserved.  What 
has  been  may  be.  Human  nature  in  ecclesiastical  af- 
fairs is  the  same  as  in  State  affairs,  and  needs  checks 
and  balances  in  the  one  as  in  the  other;  and  too 
much  must  not  be  taken  for  granted  in  the  one,  any 
more  than  in  the  other.  The  Council  was  a  move 
toward  centralization,  but  the  Church  asserted  itself  in 
time  to  prevent  its  becoming  a  permanent  part  of  the 
economy  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Gov- 
ernment by  the  Conference  once  more  asserted  itself. 

i  Autobiography  of  Rev.  Thomas  Ware,  New  York,  1840,  pp.  181, 182. 
*  David   SUerinau.  D.  D.,  History  of  Discipline,  Ed.   of   1880,  Note, 
p.  297. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  QUADRENNIAL,  GENERAL,  CONFERENCE. 

'"TVHE  Council  experiment  had  utterly  failed,  and 
-L  yet  the  need  of  some  arrangement  by  which  all 
the  preachers  could  have  a  voice  and  a  vote  in  making 
the  laws  in  a  more  convenient  manner  than  passing 
the  measure  from  Conference  to  Conference,  still 
remained. 

To  have  all  the  preachers  come  together  in  one 
place,  for  the  purpose  of  deliberating  and  deciding 
upon  matters  relating  to  the  government,  had  many 
advantages  over  the  system  of  submitting  every  enact- 
ment to  each  Annual  Conference.  Thus  it  permitted 
all  to  hear  the  same  discussion,  and,  after  hearing  the 
arguments  pro  and  con,  the  members  were  more  likely 
to  reach  a  satisfactory  conclusion  than  when  separated 
in  a  large  number  of  distinct  bodies.  In  the  latter 
case,  each  Conference  would  hear  only  its  own 
speakers,  and  so  would  not  have  the  benefit  of  the 
concentrated  wisdom  of  the  whole  Church.  The 
General  Conference  idea  was  the  only  one  that  prom- 
ised relief. 

Bishop  Asbury  was  the  promoter  of  the  Council 
plan,  to  which  Bishop  Coke  does  not  appear  to  have 
given  much  sympathy.  At  least,  after  it  had  been 
tested  and  had  caused  much  dissatisfaction,  he  seems 
to  have  strongly  opposed  the  arrangement. 
318 


QUADRENNIAL  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.      319 

On  the  23d  of  February,  1791,  Bishop  Coke,  who 
had  been  shipwrecked  off  Edisto,  came  to  Charles- 
ton, South  Carolina.  Bishop  Asbtiry  met  him  at  this 
time,  and  it  is  evident  that  Bishop  Coke  expressed 
himself  very  vigorously  against  a  continuance  of  the 
Council,  and  in  favor  of  a  general  conference  of  the 
preachers. 

Bishop  Asbury,  under  this  day,  makes  this  entry 
in  his  journal:  "I  found  the  Doctor's  sentiments 
with  regard  to  the.  Council  quite  changed.  James 
O'Kelly's  letters  had  reached  London.  I  felt  per- 
fectly calm,  and  acceded  to  a  general  conference  for 
the  sake  of  peace." 1 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  to  Bishop  Coke  is  due 
the  credit  of  reversing  the  tendency  to  centralize  the 
government  in  one  or  a  few,  of  restoring  the  suprem- 
acy of  the  body  of  the  preachers,  and  also  of  estab- 
lishing regular  General  Conferences. 

During  this  year,  owing  to  the  wide-spread  dis- 
satisfaction which  existed  among  the  preachers  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  on  account  of  matters 
connected  with  the  Council  and  tendencies  to  which 
we  have  alluded,  Bishop  Coke  began  to  fear  that  di- 
visions would  take  place.  Perceiving  what  he  be- 
lieved was  an  imminent  danger,  and  desiring  to  pre- 
vent the  threatened  disintegration  of  American 
Methodism,  Bishop  Coke,  writing  from  Richmond, 
on  the  24th  of  April,  1791,  addressed  a  confidential 
letter  to  Bishop  White,  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 


» Bishop  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  II,  p.  95. 


320    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Church,  suggesting  "a  reunion"  between  the  two 
communions."1 

For  this  act  Bishop  Coke  has  been  severely  criti- 
cised; but  when  the  circumstances  are  considered, 
there  are  grounds  for  a  charitable  judgment,  and  es- 
pecially as  a  few  years  later  he  practically  admitted 
that  he  had  made  a  mistake.2 

In  a  communication  to  the  General  Conference  of 
1808,  Bishop  Coke  alludes  to  animadversions  upon 
that  noted  letter,  and  says : 

"There  are  very  few  of  you  who  can  possibly  recollect 
anything  of  what  I  am  next  going  to  add.  Many  of  you  were 
then  only  little  children.  We  had  at  that  time  no  regular 
General  Conferences.  One  only  had  been  held,  in  the  year 
1784.  I  had  indeed,  with  great  labor  and  fatigue,  a  few 
months  before  I  wrote  this  letter  to  Bishop  White,  prevailed 
on  James  O'Kelly,  and  the  thirty-six  traveling  preachers  who 
had  withdrawn  with  him  from  all  connection  with  Bishop 
Asbury,  to  submit  to  the  decision  of  a  General  Conference. 
This  Conference  was  to  be  held  in  about  a  year  and  a  half 
after  my  departure  from  the  States.  And  at  this  Conference, 
held  I  think  the  latter  end  of  1792,  I  proposed  and  obtained 
that  great  blessing  to  the  American  Connection— a  perma- 
nency for  General  Conferences,  which  were  to  be  held  at 
stated  times.  Previously  to  the  holding  of  this  Conference 
(except  the  general  one  held  in  1784),  there  were  only  small 
district  meetings,  excepting  the  Council,  which  was  held  at 
Cokesbury  College,  either  in  1791  or  1792.  Except  the  union 
which  most  justly  subsisted  between  Bishop  Asbury  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  preachers  and  people  on  the  other,  the 
society  as  such,  taken  as  an  aggregate,  was  almost  like  a  rope 
of  sand.  I  longed  to  see  matters  on  a  footing  likely  to  be 
permanent.  Bishop  Asbury  did  the  same;  and  it  was  that 


•See  Bishop  Coke's  Letter  In  Bangs's  History  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  New  York,  1853,  3d  Ed.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  200-204. 
*/<*.,  p.  210. 


QUADRENNIAL,  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.      321 

view  of  things,  I  doubt  not,  which  led  Bishop  Asbury,  the 
year  before,  to  call  and  endeavor  to  establish  a  regular  Coun- 
cil, who  were  to  meet  him  annually  at  Cokesbury.  For  this 
point  I  differed  in  sentiment  from  my  venerable  brother. 
But  I  saw  the  danger  of  our  situation,  though  I  well  knew 
that  God  was  sufficient  for  all  things.  I  did  verily  believe 
then  that,  under  God,  the  Connection  would  be  more  likely 
to  be  saved  from  convulsions  by  a  union  with  the  old  Episco- 
pal Church  than  any  other  way — not  by  dereliction  of  ordina- 
tion, sacraments,  and  the  Methodist  Discipline,  but  by  a  junc- 
tion on  proper  terms."1 

This  revealed  three  things :  First,  that  Bishop 
Coke  wrote  the  letter  to  Bishop  White  because  he 
believed  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  in 
danger  through  internal  dissensions ;  second,  that  he 
neither  originated  nor  approved  the  Council  scheme ; 
and  third,  that  he  suggested  and  secured  the  estab- 
lishment of  stated  General  Conferences. 

Bishop  Coke's  impulses  placed  him  on  the  side  of 
liberal  government,  and  in  numerous  instances  he 
advocated  the  rights  of  the  body  of  the  preachers.  In 
this  instance  his  influence  was  thrown  in  favor  of  a 
General  Conference,  as  a  means  of  checking  disorgan- 
izing tendencies,  and  as  a  more  equitable  system  of 
government. 

When  Bishop  Coke  returned  to  the  United 
States  early  in  1791,  he  appears  at  once  to  have  sug- 
gested the  calling  of  a  General  Conference,  and,  as 
already  stated,  Bishop  Asbury  acceded  "for  the  sake 
of  peace."  The  result  was  that  a  General  Confer- 
ence of  all  the  preachers  was  called  for  1792.  Prob- 


Letter  in  Bangs's  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
New  York,  1863,  3d  Ed.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  20G-210. 


322  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

ably  the  matter  was  submitted  by  the  bishops  to 
all  the  Conferences,  and,  as  Bangs  remarks,  "  This 
was,  it  seems,  agreed  upon  by  the  several  Annual 
Conferences  which  had  been  held  this  year." l 

The  records  of "  the  first  regular  General  Confer- 
ence," as  Lee  terms  it,  have  not  been  preserved  in 
separate  form,  but  what  was  done  was  incorporated 
in  the  Discipline  of  1792,  and  appears  in  the  works 
of  contemporaneous  writers,  and  particularly  in  Lee's 
History.  Lee  informs  us  that,— 

"  On  the  first  day  of  November,  1792,  the  first  regular 
General  Conference  began  in  Baltimore.  Our  preachers  who 
had  been  received  into  full  connection  came  together  from  ail 
parts  of  the  United  States  where  we  had  any  circuits  formed, 
with  an  expectation  that  something  of  great  importance 
would  take  place  hi  the  Connection  in  consequence  of  that 
Conference.  The  preachers  generally  thought  that  in  all 
probability  there  would  never  be  another  Conference  of  that 
kind,  at  which  all  the  preachers  in  connection  might  attend. 
The  work  was  spreading  through  all  the  United  States  and  the 
different  Territories,  and  was  likely  to  increase  more  and  more, 
so  that  it  was  generally  thought  that  this  Conference  would 
adopt  some  permanent  regulations  which  would  prevent  the 
preachers  in  future  from  coming  together  in  a  General  Con- 
ference. This  persuasion  brought  out  more  of  the  preachers 
than  otherwise  would  have  attended. 

"  By  this  time  the  plan  of  the  former  Council  had  become 
exceedingly  disagreeable  to  the  greater  part  of  our  brethren, 
both  preachers  and  people  ;  and  it  was  expected  that  some  of 
the  preachers  would  try,  in  that  Conference,  to  revive  and  es- 
tablish it.  But  we  were  agreeably  disappointed;  for  soon 
after  we  met  together,  the  bishops  and  the  preachers  in  general 
showed  a  disposition  to  drop  the  Council  and  all  things  be- 
longing thereunto ;  and  the  bishop  requested  that  the  name 

>  Nathan  Bang«,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  N.  Y., 
1857,  10th  Ed.,  Vol.  I,  p.  343. 


QUADRENNIAL  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.     323 

of  the  Council  might  not  he  mentioned  in  the  Conference 
again.  No  one  attempted  to  bring  forward  that  business 
afterwards. 

"  The  Conference  proceeded,  in  the  first  place,  to  form 
some  rules  and  regulations  for  conducting  the  business  which 
lay  before  them.  To  that  end  there  was  a  committee  ap- 
pointed of  the  oldest  preachers  and  a  few  chosen  from  those 
that  were  younger  in  the  work.  This  committee  was  to  con- 
sider matters  among  themselves,  and  when  a  majority  of  them 
agreed  to  make  any  alteration  in  our  form  of  Discipline,  they 
were  to  make  report  to  the  Conference.  One  of  the  rules  for 
the  regulation  of  the  Conference  was  this :  '  It  shall  take  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  Conference  to  make  a  new 
rule,  or  abolish  an  old  one ;  but  a  majority  may  alter  or  amend 
any  rule.' 

"The  committee  was  afterwards  increased  by  adding 
more  preachers  to  it ;  but,  after  all,  it  was  found  to  be  of  no 
real  use ;  for  if  a  few  of  the  committee  were  opposed  to  any- 
thing that  was  adopted  by  a  majority  of  their  brethren,  when 
the  business  was  brought  before  the  whole  of  the  Conference, 
those  that  were  dissatisfied  before  would  take  an  active  part 
in  the  debates,  and  all  the  arguments  that  had  been  brought 
forward  in  the  committee  would  be  taken  up  again,  which 
did  not  answer  the  end  intended.  It  had  been  thought  that 
a  committee  would  arrange  matters  so  as  to  expedite  the 
business ;  but  after  trying  it,  we  found  that  it  had  the  con- 
trary effect.  The  committee  was  then  given  up,  and  any 
preacher  was  at  liberty  to  bring  forward  any  motion ;  and 
the  Conference  proceeded  to  establish  or  reject  it,  according  to 
the  above  regulation,  either  by  the  voice  of  a  majority  or  two- 
thirds,  as  the  case  might  require."  l 

"  One  rule  for  our  debates  was,  '  That  each  person,  if  he 
choose,  shall  have  liberty  to  speak  three  times  on  each 
motion.'"1 

"  At  that  General  Conference  we  revised  the  form  of  Dis- 
cipline, and  made  several  alterations.  The  proceedings  of 
that  Conference  were  not  published  in  separate  Minutes,  but 


» Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  Baltimore,  1810,  pp.  176-178. 
i/d.,  p.  17». 


324    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

the  alterations  were  entered  at  their  proper  places,  and  pub- 
lished in  the  next  edition  of  the  form  of  Discipline,  which 
was  the  eighth  edition." 

The  title-page  of  that  edition  was  as  follows: 
"The  Doctrine  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  America,  revised  and  approved 
at  the  General  Conference  held  at  Baltimore,  in  the 
State  of  Maryland,  in  November,  1792,  in  which 
Thomas  Coke  and  Francis  Asbury  presided." 

In  the  Bishop's  Address  to  the  Members  of  the 
Methodist  Societies  in  the  United  States  they  say: 

"  We  have  made  some  little  alteration  in  the  present 
edition,  yet  such  as  affects  not  in  any  degree  the  essentials  of 
our  doctrine  and  Discipline.  We  think  ourselves  obliged  fre- 
quently to  view  and  review  the  whole  order  of  our  Church, 
always  aiming  at  perfection. 

"  We  determined  at  this  Conference  to  have  another 
General  Conference  at  the  end  of  four  years,  to  be  held  in 
Baltimore  on  the  first  of  November,  1796.  We  also  agreed 
that  all  the  traveling  preachers  who  should  be  in  full  con- 
nection at  the  time  of  holding  the  next  General  Conference 
should  be  entitled  to  a  seat. 

"  It  was  likewise  determined  that  the  districts  should  be 
formed  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  bishops ;  yet  so  as  not 
to  include  more  than  twelve,  nor  less  than  three  circuits  in  a 
district.  Moreover  it  was  also  said :  '  The  bishop  shall  ap- 
point the  time  of  holding  the  district  Conferences.' * 

"  We  had  also  this :  '  N.  B.— In  case  there  be  no  bishop 
to  travel  through  the  districts  and  exercise  the  episcopal  office 
on  the  account  of  death,  the  districts  shall  be  regulated  in 
every  respect  by  the  district  Conferences  and  the  presiding 
elders,  till  the  ensuing  General  Conference  (ordination  only 
excepted).'"  * 

"The  fifth  section  had  respect  to  the  presiding  elders. 
Such  an  order  of  elders  had  never  been  regularly  established 
>  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  Baltimore,  1810,  pp.  180-181. 
•  Id.,  p.  182. 


QUADRENNIAL  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.     325 

before.  They  had  been  appointed  by  the  bishop  for  several 
years;  but  it  was  a  doubt  in  the  minds  of  the  preachers 
whether  such  power  belonged  to  him.  The  General  Confer- 
ence now  determined  that  there  should  be  presiding  elders, 
an<l  that  they  should  be  chosen,  stationed,  and  changed  by  the 
bi«hop.  However,  a  new  rule  was  formed  respecting  them,  as 
follows:  '  The  bishop  shall  not  allow  an  elder  to  preside  in  the 
same  district  more  than  four  years  successively.' "  * 

This  General  Conference  made  many  changes  in 
the  Discipline.  As  Lee  remarks :  "  It  was  eight  years 
from  the  Christmas  Conference,  where  we  became  a 
regular  Church,  to  this  General  Conference.  In 
which  time  our  form  of  Discipline  had  been  changed 
and  altered  in  so  many  particulars,  and  the  business 
of  the  Council  had  thrown  the  Connection  into  such 
confusion  that  we  thought  proper  at  this  Conference 
to  take  under  consideration  the  greater  part  of  the 
form  of  Discipline,  and  either  abolish,  establish,  or 
change  the  rules,  so  that  we  might  all  approve  of,  or 
be  reconciled  to,  whatever  might  be  found  in  the  Dis- 
cipline." a 

It  was  at  the  General  Conference  of  1792  that  the 
Rev.  James  O'Kelly  proposed  his  historic  amend- 
ment to  the  Discipline,  as  follows : 

"  After  the  bishop  appoints  the  preachers  at  Con- 
ference to  their  several  circuits,  if  any  one  think  him- 
self injured  by  the  appointment,  he  shall  have  liberty 
to  appeal  to  the  Conference  and  state  his  objections; 
and  if  the  Conference  approve  his  objections,  the 
bishop  shall  appoint  him  to  another  circuit."3 


1  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  Baltimore,  1810,  p.  181 
i  Id.,  pp.  192-193.  »  J<L,  p.  178. 


326   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Lee  states  that  "  this  motion  brought  on  a  long 
debate;  the  arguments  for  and  against  the  proposal 
were  weighty  and  handled  in  a  masterly  manner;"  but 
"  when  the  vote  was  taken,  the  motion  was  lost  by  a 
large  majority." 

This  matter  caused  great  anxiety  in  the  mind  of 
Bishop  Asbury,  who  wrote : 

"I  felt  awful  at  the  General  Conference  which 
began  November  1,  1792.  At  my  desire  they  ap- 
pointed a  moderator  and  preparatory  committee  to 
keep  order  and  bring  forward  the  business  with 
regularity.  We  had  heavy  debates  on  the  first,  second, 
and  third  sections  of  our  form  of  Discipline.  My 
power  to  station  the  preachers  without  an  appeal  was 
much  debated,  but  finally  carried  by  a  very  large 
majority.  Perhaps  a  new  bishop,  new  Conference, 
and  new  laws  would  have  better  pleased  some.  I 
have  been  much  grieved  for  others,  and  distressed 
with  the  burthen  I  bear  and  must  hereafter  bear.  .  .  . 

"Some  individuals  among  the  preachers  having 
their  jealousies  about  my  influence  in  the  Conference, 
I  gave  the  matter  wholly  up  to  them,  and  to  Dr. 
Coke,  who  presided.  Meantime  I  sent  them  the  fol- 
lowing letter: 

" '  MY  DEAR  BRETHREN, — Let  my  absence  give  you  no  pain. 
Dr.  Coke  presides.  I  am  happily  excused  from  assisting  to 
make  laws  by  which  myself  am  to  be  governed.  I  have  only 
to  obey  and  execute.  I  am  happy  in  the  consideration  that  I 
never  stationed  a  preacher  through  enmity  or  as  a  punish- 
ment. I  have  acted  for  the  glory  of  God,  the  good  of  the 
people,  and  to  promote  the  usefulness  of  the  preachers.  Are 
you  sure  that,  if  you  please  yourselves,  the  people  will  be 


QUADRENNIAL  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.     327 

as  fully  satisfied  ?  They  often  say,  "  Let  us  have  such  a 
preacher ;"  and  sometimes,  "  We  will  not  have  such  a  preacher ; 
we  will  sooner  pay  him  to  stay  at  home."  Perhaps  I  must 
say,  "  His  appeal  forced  him  upon  you."  I  am  one,  ye  are 
many.  I  am  as  willing  to  serve  you  as  ever.  I  want  not  to 
.sit  in  any  man's  way.  I  scorn  to  solicit  votes.  I  am  a  very 
trembling,  poor  creature  to  hear  praise  or  dispraise.  Speak 
your  minds  freely,  but  remember,  you  are. only  making  laws 
for  the  present  time  ;  it  may  be,  that  as  in  some  other  things, 
BO  in  this,  a  future  day  may  give  you  further  light. 
" '  I  am  yours,  etc., 

"' FRANCIS  ASBURY.'" * 

The  result  was,  that  Mr.  O'Kelly  withdrew,  and 
formed  a  body  called  the  "  Republican  Methodists." 
Subsequently  the  name  was  changed  to  "  The  Chris- 
tian Church ;"  but  that  body  soon  ceased  to  exist. 

It  is  not  our  province  to  discuss  this  matter, 
though  it  has  much  historic  interest.2  We  must  con- 
tent ourselves  at  this  time  with  the  results  of  this 
General  Conference  as  bearing  upon  the  development 
of  Conference  government. 

The  effect  in  general  was  to  strengthen  the  power 
of  the  body  of  the  ministry.  Among  other  things 
the  Conference  placed  the  power  of  electing  bishops 
in  the  General  Conference,  and  made  the  bishops 
amenable  to  the  General  Conference,  which  body 
would  have  power  to  expel  a  bishop  for  improper 
conduct. 

In  answer  to  the  question,  "  Who  shall  compose 
the  General  Conference?"  it  was  decided  that  "all 
the  traveling  preachers  who  shall  be  in  full  connec- 


i  Bishop  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  II,  pp.  140,  147. 

•  See  Lee's  History  of  the  Methodists,  pp.  178-180 ;  202-208. 


328   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

tion  at  the  time  of  holding  the  Conference;"  and  thus 
it  stood  until  1800,  when  the  General  Conference  of 
that  year  amended  the  answer  so  that  it  read  :  "  All  the 
preachers  who  have  traveled  four  years,  and  are  in 
full  connection  at  the  time  of  holding  the  Conference." 

In  1804  it  was  changed  to  read :  "  All  the  preach- 
ers who  shall  have  traveled  four  years  from  the  time 
they  were  received  on  trial  by  an  Annual  Conference, 
and  are  in  full  connection  at  the  time  of  holding 
the  Conference." * 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  limitations  increased 
with  the  years.  At  first  every  traveling  preacher  was 
a  member  of  the  General  Conference  if  he  was  a  full 
member  of  an  Annual  Conference  at  the  time  the 
General  Conference  convened.  In  eight  years  there 
was  another  requirement;  namely,  he  must  not  only 
be  in  full  connection  but  he  must  also  have  traveled 
as  an  itinerant  preacher  four  years;  and  four  years 
after  that  it  was  made  a  requisite  that  he  had  traveled 
four  years  from  the  time  he  was  received  on  probation  in 
an  Annual  Conference.  According  to  the  first  arrange- 
ment he  might  have  been  a  member  after  itinerating  only 
two  years,  for  in  that  time  one  might  be  received  into 
full  membership  in  the  Annual  Conference;  under  the 
second  he  must  have  traveled  four  years,  but  two  of 
these  might  have  been  prior  to  his  being  received  "on 
trial;"  while  under  the  third  arrangement  the  four 
years  were  to  count  from  the  time  he  was  received  on 
probation,  so  that  though  he  might  have  served  as 
a  supply  or  helper  a  number  of  years  before  that, 

1  See  Discipline  for  the  above  yean. 


QUADRENNIAL  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.      329 

the  years  prior  to  admission  would  not  count  in  his 
favor.  Prior  to  the  General  Conference  of  1792  the 
members  in  the  Annual  Conferences  could  make  laws 
for  the  whole  Church,  though  they  met  separately  in 
distinct  Conferences, — the  method  being,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  to  propose  the  measure  in  the  first  Con- 
ference of  the  year,  and  then  to  present  it  to  the 
other  Conferences  as  they  convened;  and  if  the 
measure  obtained  a  majority  in  each  Conference,  it 
became  a  law.  It  was  possible  under  the  former  ar- 
rangement, without  an  assembling  of  all  the  minis- 
ters in  one  place,  to  elect  a  bishop;  and  so  it  hap- 
pens that  in  1788  a  new  question  was  added  to  the 
list  of  questions  for  a  Conference  session;  namely, 
"  Is  there  any  other  business  to  be  done  in  the 
Conference  ?"  and  the  answer  was :  "  The  electing 
and  ordaining  of  bishops,  elders,  and  deacons." ' 

By  the  act  of  the  preachers  assembled  in  the 
General  Conference  of  1792,  the  power  to  elect 
officers  for  the  Church  was  taken  from  the  yearly 
Conferences,  and  vested  in  the  Quadrennial  General 
Conference.  Thus  it  was  specified  that  bishops  were 
to  be  elected  by,  and  be  amenable  to,  the  General 
Conference.1  In  the  interim  a  committee  of  minis- 
ters could  suspend  a  bishop  for  a  matter  reflecting  on 
his  moral  character;  but  only  the  General  Con- 
ference could  expel  him.  A  similar  change  was 
made  in  regard  to  legislative  enactments.  By  the  de- 
cision of  the  General  Conference  of  1792  the  law- 
making  power  was  taken  from  the  several  Annual 

•  Discipline  for  1788.       <  Id.,  1792. 
22 


330    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Conferences  sitting  separately,  and  all  legislative 
power  was  vested  in  the  General  Conference,  which 
was  to  meet  once  in  four  years;  and  from  that  time 
new  laws,  or  changes  in  the  old  laws,  could  be  made 
only  once  in  four  years,  and  then  only  by  the  min- 
isters eligible  to  membership  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence, and  in  General  Conference  assembled. 

Thus  directly  and  by  implication  the  action  of  this 
assembly  of  all  the  ministers — representing  the  then 
governing  power  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — 
the  supreme  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive  power 
of  the  Church  was  now  vested  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence, which  was  to  meet  once  in  four  years. 

To  this  Quadrennial  General  Conference,  consti- 
tuted as  before  stated,  bishops  and  ordained  ministers, 
preachers  and  people,  Conferences  and  Churches,  were 
to  be  subject.  Its  authority  was  to  touch  the  highest 
official  in  the  general  Church,  as  well  as  the  humblest 
member  in  the  local  Church.  It  was  to  make  the 
Jaws,  to  interpret  the  laws,  and,' directly  or  indirectly, 
to  execute  the  laws.  It  represented  the  Church — it 
was  the  Church  for  all  these  purposes. 

It  is  true  the  ordinary  lay  members  of  the  Church 
were  not  present  in  the  General  Conference  of  1792, 
either  in  person  or  by  delegate  directly  elected  by 
themselves;  yet,  nevertheless,  it  represented  the  gov- 
erning power  of  the  Church. 

The  people  conceded  the  governing  power  to  the 
preachers,  and  from  the  beginning  acquiesced  in  what 
they  decided,  just  as  they  did  when  the  Church  was 
organized  in  1784.  In  a  sense,  the  ministry  made 


QUADRENNIAL  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.      331 

the  Church  by  their  labors;  and  the  people,  who  had 
been  educated  to  reverence  the  clergy  as  shepherds 
appointed  by  the  Great  Shepherd  of  all  to  oversee 
the  flock  of  Christ,  found  no  difficulty  in  committing 
to  the  ministry  the  government  of  the  general 
Church. 

Lee  informs  us  that  "  the  proceedings  of  this 
General  Conference  gave  great  satisfaction  to  our 
preachers  and  people,  and  the  divisive  spirit  which 
bad  been  prevailing  in  different  parts  of  our  Con- 
nection was  considerably  checked.  And  nothing 
that  was  done  gave  more  satisfaction  than  the  plan 
that  was  laid  for  having  another  General  Conference 
at  the  expiration  of  four  years  from  that  time,  to 
which  all  the  preachers  in  full  connection  were  at 
liberty  to  come."  l 

The  Quadrennial  General  Conference  had  now 
become  a  permanent  institution.  The  next  one  met  in 
Baltimore,  October  20, 1796,  though  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1792  directed  that  it  should  be  held  "  on  the 
first  day  of  November,  in  the  year  1796,  in  the  town 
of  Baltimore." 2  The  second  regular  General  Con- 
ference, just  before  its  adjournment,  resolved  that  the 
next  General  Conference  would  be  held  "  in  Balti- 
more, on  the  20th  of  October,  in  the  year  1800  ;"3 
but  it  met  in  that  year  on  the  6th  day  of  May. 

This  is  explained  by  a  resolution  presented  on 


*  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  Methodists,  1810,  p.  193. 

•  Discipline  for  1792. 

1  Journals  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  New  York,  1855,  Vol.  I,  p.  29. 


332    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

the  second   day   of  the   session.     The   record  is  as 
follows: 

"Brother  Snethen  moved  that,  'whertas,  the  General 
Conference,  held  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  A.  D.,  1796,  did  re- 
solve that  the  following  General  Conference  should  meet  in 
the  said  city  of  Baltimore  upon  the  twentieth  day  of  October, 
A.  D.,  1800 ;  and  whereas,  the  prevalence  of  a  very  malignant 
epidemic  disorder,  called  the  yellow  fever,  in  Baltimore  and 
other  sea-port  towns,  made  it  doubtful  whether  it  would  be 
possible  for  the  said  General  Conference  to  meet  at  that  ses- 
sion of  the  year ;  and  whereas,  Mr.  Asbury  did,  by  the  advice 
of  certain  judicious  friends,  lay  the  case  before  the  yearly 
Conferences,  and  they  likewise  judged  an  alteration  highly 
necessary,  and  did  appoint  the  time  of  meeting  (for  the  above 
reason  only)  to  be  Tuesday,  the  6th  of  May,  A.  D.,  1800, — 

" '  Resolved,  That  this  General  Conference  now  met  accord- 
ing to  the  above  alteration  and  appointment,  do  unanimously 
approve  of  the  said  alteration,  and  ratify  it  accordingly.'" 

The  Journal  states  that  the  resolution  "carried."1 
It  will  be  remembered  that  Lee  stated  that  the 
General  Conference  of  1792  formed  "some  rules  and 
regulations  for  conducting  the  business,"  but  in  the 
Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  1800  we  have 
the  first  comprehensive  series  of  rules  of  order 
adopted  by  a  General  Conference. 

As  they  have  an  historical  interest,  we  quote : 

"  The  following  rules  were  agreed  upon  for  the  order  of 
the  Conferences : 

"  1.  Any  person  speaking  shall  not  be  interrupted,  except 
by  the  presidents,  when  they  judge  that  he  deviates  too  much 
from  the  point;  nevertheless,  an  appeal  may  be  made  to  the 
Conference  by  any  two  members  from  the  presidents,  but 
neither  the  Conference  nor  the  presidents  shall  speak  to  the 
point,  but  simply  take  the  vote. 


>  Journal  of  General  Conference,  Vol.  I,  for  years  1796-1838,  p.  82. 


QUADRENNIAL  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.     333 

"  2.  No  person  shall  have  liberty  to  speak  above  a  quarter  of 
an  hour  at  a  time,  except  With  the  permission  of  the  Confer- 
ence ;  but  still  the  Conference  shall  grant  or  prohibit  without 
debate. 

"3.  If  any  person  thinks  himself  misrepresented  by  a 
speaker,  he  shall  have  a  right  to  explain,  in  as  few  words  as 
possible,  after  the  speaker  has  done. 

"  4.  No  person  shall  speak  oftener  than  three  times  on 
any  question. 

"5.  The  sittings  of  Conference  shall  be  from  nine  to 
twelve  in  the  morning,  and  from  three  to  six  in  the  afternoon. 

"  6.  No  question  shall  be  proposed  on  a  different  subject 
from  that  under  debate,  until  the  question  debated  be  decided 
or  postponed. 

"  7.  A  secretary  shall  be  chosen  by  the  Conference,  who 
shall  keep  a  regular  journal  of  all  the  proceedings  of  the  Con- 
ference, which  journal  shall  be  signed  by  the  presidents  and 
countersigned  by  the  secretary  at  the  close  of  the  Conference. 

"  8.  Nicholas  Snethen  is  elected  secretary. 

"9.  No  motion  shall  be  put,  except  by  the  presidents, 
unless  it  be  first  delivered  at  the  table  in  writing,  after  being 
read  by  the  mover  and  seconded. 

"  10.  No  old  rule  shall  be  abolished  except  by  a  majority 
of  two-thirds. 

"  11.  No  member  of  the  Conference  shall  leave  the  city  of 
Baltimore  until  4he  Conference  adjourn,  without  first  obtain- 
ing leave  of  absence. 

"  12.  No  member  shall  leave  the  room  to  go  into  the  city 
without  leave. 

"  13.  The  bishops  are  requested  to  arrange,  and,  from  time 
to  time,  to  lay  before  the  Conference  such  business  as  they 
may  judge  expedient,  provided  the  above  regulation  does  not 
affect  the  ninth  rule. 

"  14.  Any  member  shall  have  liberty  to  copy,  at  pleasure, 
any  motion  laid  upon  the  table."  * 

These  parliamentary  rules  are  rather  peculiar. 
They  are  very  liberal  in  some  particulars,  and  in 


1  General  Conference  Journal,  1856,  Vol.  I,  pp.  SI,  32. 


S34    .GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

others  rather  restricted.  Some  are  very  sound,  even 
according  to  the  practice  of  the  present  day,  while 
the  soundness  of  other  rules  would  no  doubt  be 
questioned. 

A  few  of  the  points  are  worthy  of  special  notice. 
Thus:  Only  the  president  could  interrupt  a  speaker; 
on  an  appeal  no  debate  was  allowed,  and  even  the 
president  could  not  state  the  reasons  for  his  decision; 
a  member  might  speak  three  times  on  a  question; 
no  member  could  leave  the  city  without  leave  being 
granted  by  the  Conference ;  the  bishops  were  a  com- 
mittee to  arrange  and  present  business.  The  rule 
that  a  member  shall  not  have  a  right  to  correct  a 
misrepresentation  until  the  speaker  has  finished  his 
speech  is  not  bad  law  even  to-day. 

At  this  Conference  of  1800  it  was  agreed  "that 
the  election  of  a  bishop  shall  be  by  ballot,  written, 
and  put  into  a  box  or  drawer." l  On  the  first  ballot 
no  one  had  a  majority.  On  the  second,  "the  tellers 
reported  that  there  was  a  tie  between  Richard  What- 
coat  and  Jesse  Lee.  They  proceeded  to  a  third 
ballot,  when  Richard  Whatcoat  was  declared  to  be 
duly  elected  by  a  majority  of  four  votes."2 

The  Journal  of  the  Conference  has  this  record: 

"The  Conference  proceeded  to  the  election  of  a  bishop; 
the  first  poll  being  a  tie,  and  supposed  defective.  Upon  the 
second,  there  were  fifty-nine  votes  for  Brother  Richard  What- 
coat, fifty-five  for  Brother  Jesse  Lee,  and  one  blank— the 
whole  number  of  voters  being  one  hundred  and  fifteen ;  where- 
upon Brother  Richard  Whatcoat  was  declared  duly  elected."' 

'  General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  85. 

«  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  Baltimore,  1810,  p.  280. 

•Qeneral  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  pp.  80, 37. 


QUADRENNIAL,  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.      335 

We  are  inclined  to  give  the  preference  to  Rev. 
Jesse  Lee's  account,  for  one  who  was  so  nearly 
elected  a  bishop  had  probably  a  vivid  recollection  of 
the  entire  transaction.  Further,  Lee  is  usually  very 
accurate,  while  most  secretaries  condense  too  much. 

The  General  Conference  of  1800  ordered  the  next 
General  Conference  to  "  be  held  in  the  city  of  Balti- 
more, on  the  sixth  day  of  May,  1804;"1  and  Lee  says 
it  was  held  in  that  city  and  on  that  day,2  but  the 
General  Conference  Journal  gives  May  7th  as  the 
first  day  of  the  session.3  It  may  be  that  on  the  6th 
preliminary  exercises  were  held,  and  that  the  business 
began  the  next  day. 

The  three  bishops  were  present  at  the  General 
Conference  of  1804.  It  was  at  this  Conference  that, 
on  motion  of  the  Rev.  Ezekiel  Cooper,  of  Phila- 
delphia, the  Twenty-third  Article  of  Religion  was 
amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "General  Act  of 
Confederation,"  and  inserting  "  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,"  and  after  the  word  "States"  insert- 
ing the  words  "are  a  sovereign  and  independent 
Nation." 

Lee  says:  "We  had  several  new  regulations  made 
at  this  General  Conference;  one  was  as  follows:  'The 
bishops  shall  allow  the  Annual  Conferences  to  sit  a 
week  at  least/  Before  this  rule  was  established  the 
bishop  could  conclude  the  business  as  soon  as  he 
thought  proper."4 

1  General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  43;  Lee's  History,  p.  271. 
•Lee's  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  295. 
•General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  49. 
«  Lee's  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  298. 


336     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

The  same  member  of  the  Conference  laments 
"  that  there  was  very  little  stir  of  religion  among  us 
during  the  sitting  of  the  Conference. "  Commenting 
on  this,  he  says :  "  One  principal  reason  of  our  bar- 
renness, I  believe,  was  owing  to  an  improper  plan 
which  was  adopted  by  the  Conference  in  the  begin- 
ning of  their  business,  which  was  this:  To  admit 
men,  women,  and  children  into  the  galleries  of  the 
meeting-house  to  hear  our  debates.  After  a  few  days 
we  were  obliged  to  close  the  galleries  and  sit  in  pri- 
vate, according  to  our  usual  plan."1  So  in  those 
days  the  public  were  not  admitted  to  hear  the  delib- 
erations. 

Again,  referring  to  this  Conference,  Lee  says* 
"We  had  no  Minutes  of  our  General  Conference 
published  in  a  pamphlet  this  year,  although  it  had 
been  done  at  the  preceding  General  Conferences; 
but  the  alterations  and  additions  which  were  made  to 
our  rules  were  put  into  the  chapters,  sections,  and 
paragraphs  where  they  belonged  in  the  Form  of 
Discipline."3 

The  Conference  remained  in  session  until  the  23d 
of  May,  and,  "on  several  motions,  the  next  General 
Conference  was  appointed  to  meet  in  four  years;  viz., 
on  May  1,  1808,  at  Baltimore.''8  But  the  Journal 
states  that  the  Conference  began  on  the  6th  of 
May.4 

Thus  from   1792  to   1808,   General   Conferences 

>  Rev.  Jesse  Lee's  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  300. 

» Id.,  p.  298. 

•General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  68. 

</(*.,  p.  72 ;  Lee's  History  of  the  Methodists,  p.  846. 


QUADRENNIAL  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.      337 

had  been  held  once  in  four  years ;  and  the  Quadren- 
nial General  Conference,  having  been  thoroughly 
tested,  was  firmly  incorporated  in  the  economy  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America, 


CHAPTER  XII. 
THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE. 

FkROM  1792,  when  the  first  regular  Quadrennial 
General  Conference  was  held,  to  1808,  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  had  made  great  progress.  In 
1792  there  were  266  preachers,  while  in  1808  there 
were  540,  the  number  having  more  than  doubled  in 
sixteen  years.  The  membership  in  1792  was  65,980; 
but  in  1808  it  had  grown  to  151,995,  very  much  more 
than  double. 

The  ministers  were  scattered  all  over  the  country 
from  the  extreme  north  to  the  southern  limit,  and 
as  far  west  as  the  Mississippi  River,  so  that  it  was 
difficult  for  many  of  them  to  attend  the  General 
Conference. 

The  increasing  difficulty  of  getting  so  many 
preachers  together  from  such  distant  points,  and  the 
loss  of  time  and  service  by  their  long  absences  from 
their  charges  in  those  days  of  slow  travel,  compelled 
thoughtful  men  to  perceive  the  need  of  further  modi- 
fication. 

From  these  reflections  came  the  suggestion  to 
change  the  composition  of  the  General  Conference  so 
that  it  would  contain,  not  all  the  elders,  but  repre- 
sentatives selected  by  the  members  of  the  several  An- 
nual Conferences. 

338 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  339 

To  the  Rev.  Jesse  Lee  belongs  the  honor  of 
being  the  first  to  suggest  the  idea  of  a  delegated  Gen- 
eral Conference,  and  he  made  his  suggestion  before 
the  General  Conference  of  1792  had  convened. 

Under  date  of  Thursday,  July  7,  1791,  Asbury 
makes  this  entry  in  his  journal: 

"  This  day  Brother  Jesse  Lee  put  a  paper  into  my  hand 
proposing  the  election  of  not  less  than  two,  nor  more  than 
four  preachers  from  each  Conference,  to  form  a  General  Con- 
ference in  Baltimore,  in  December,  1792,  to  be  continued  an- 
nually."1 

Lee's  suggestion  was  not  accepted  at  the  time,  but 
no  doubt  it  was  the  sowing  of  good  seed  from  which 
came  a  good  harvest. 

The  idea  of  a  delegated  General  Conference  was 
formally  presented  in  the  General  Conference  of 
1800,  but  that  body  refused  to  sanction  the  arrange- 
ment. The  Journal  of  that  year  contains  the  follow- 
ing under  date  of  May  8th,  the  third  day  of  the 
session : 

"Brother  Folleson  moved,  that — Whereat,  much  time  has 
been  lost,  and  always  will  be  lost,  in  the  event  of  a  General 
Conference  being  continued  ;  and  whereas,  the  circuits  are  left 
without  preachers  for  one,  two,  or  three  months,  and  other 
great  inconveniences  attend  so  many  of  the  preachers  leaving 
their  work,  and  no  real  advantage  arises  therefrom, — 

"  Resolved,  That  instead  of  a  General  Conference  we  sub- 
stitute a  delegated  one. 

"  Negatived." « 

The  resolution  appears  to  have  been  reconsidered; 
for  on  May  15th  there  is  this  entry :  "  Brother  Tol- 


» Bishop  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  II,  p.  110. 
*  General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  1,  p.  34. 


340    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

leson's  motion  for  a  delegated  General  Conference 
was  called  up,  and  lost  by  a  large  majority."  l 

In  one  place  the  name  is  spelled  Folleson  and  in 
the  other  Tolleson.  The  probability  is  that  the  dif- 
ference is  a  misprint  by  substituting  an  F  for  a  T, 
and  that  in  both  places  the  name  should  be  Tolle- 
son. In  the  list  of  preachers  as  given  in  the  Min- 
utes of  that  time  there  is  no  one  named  Folleson,  but 
there  is  a  James  Tolleson. 

This  James  Tolleson  was  admitted  on  trial  in 
1791,  and  his  name  stands  first  in  the  list  of  those 
so  admitted  that  year.2  In  1793  he  was  admitted 
into  full  connection.3  In  1799  his  name  appears 
among  the  elders,4  and  in  that  year  he  was  stationed 
at  Alexandria,  Virginia.6  In  1800  he  was  stationed 
at  Norfolk,  Va.  This  was  his  charge  when  he  at- 
tended the  General  Conference  of  this  year,  for 
his  Annual  or  District  Conference  met  on  the 
10th  of  April  while  the  General  Conference  met 
the  following  month.  The  Journal  shows  that  in 
the  General  Conference  he  was  quite  an  active 
member.  In  the  month  of  August  of  the  same  year 
he  died. 

The  Minutes  of  1801  contain  this  mention: 

"  Quet.  10.  Who  have  died  this  year  ?" 

"  Ana.  1.  James  Tolleson,  a  native  of  South  Carolina.  H« 
labored  as  a  traveling*  preacher  between  eight  and  nine  years ; 
during  which  time  he  filled  several  important  stations  with 
dignity  and  diligence,  and  moved  from  Georgia  to  New  Jersey. 
He  possessed  promising  abilities  both  in  gifts  and  understand- 

>  General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p,  39. 

« Minutes  of  Conferences,  Ed.  of  1813,  p.  VI.  *Jd.,  p.  121. 

*ld.,  p.  210.  •  Id.,  p.  228. 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  341 

ing ;  but  what  is  of  infinitely  more  importance,  he  was  a  man 
of  piety  and  uniform  in  his  religious  deportment.  He  died 
in  August,  1800,  of  the  malignant  fever,  in  Portsmouth,  Va., 
with  due  preparation  and  great  resignation  of  mind,  mani- 
festing that  he  possessed  a  lively  sense  of  his  acceptance 
with  God."1 

Such  was  the  man  who  has  the  distinction  of 
first  moving  in  a  General  Conference  a  proposition 
for  the  creation  of  a  delegated  General  Conference. 

The  thought  soon  began  to  develop  and  took 
possession  of  many  minds,  and  at  last  was  taken 
up  in  a  formal  manner  by  the  New  York  Annual 
Conference,  and  by  it  was  presented  to  the  attention 
of  the  other  Annual  Conferences. 

The  Rev.  Jesse  Lee  states  that,  as  early  as  1806, 
the  New  York  Conference  made  an  attempt  in  this 
direction,  and  to  it  he  takes  strong  exception.  He 
says: 

"  In  the  course  of  the  year  1806  there  was  a  plan  laid 
which  would  have  overset  and  destroyed  the  rules  and  regu- 
lations of  the  Methodists  respecting  the  election  and  ordina- 
tion of  bishops.  It  was  said  that  the  plan  originated  in  the 
New  York  Conference,  which  was  as  follows :  '  To  call  a  dele- 
gated Conference  of  seven  members  from  each  Conference, 
chosen  by  the  Conference,  to  meet  in  Baltimore,  to  meet  on 
the  4th  of  July,  1807,  to  choose  superintendents,  etc.  This 
plan  was  adopted  by  four  of  the  Conferences  ;  viz  ,  New  York, 
New  England,  the  Western  and  South  Carolina  Conferences ; 
and  delegates  were  accordingly  chosen.  But  when  it  was 
proposed  to  the  Virginia  Conference,  which  met  in  Newbern 
in  February,  1807,  they  refused  to  take  it  under  consideration, 
and  rejected  it  as  being  pointedly  in  opposition  to  all  therulrs 
of  our  Church.  The  bishop  labored  hard  to  carry  the  point, 
but  he  labored  in  vain ;  and  the  whole  business  of  that  daii- 


>  Minutes  of  Conferences,  Ed.,  1813,  p.  264. 


342    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

gerous  plan  was  overset  by  the  Virginia  Conference.  The  in- 
ventors and  defenders  of  that  project  might  have  meant 
well ;  but  they  certainly  erred  in  judgment."  * 

This  was  certainly  a  very  remarkable  and  revolu- 
tionary project.  It  totally  ignored  the  Quadrennial 
General  Conference  already  established,  and  which 
had  been  by  the  authoritative  body  ordered  for  May, 
1808.  It  was  also  unfair  in  its  disproportionate 
representation,  for  by  it  the  smallest  Conference 
would  have  the  same  number  of  delegates  as  the 
largest.  That  the  bishops  should  aid  in  promoting 
such  a  scheme  seems  very  strange.  Thanks  to  the 
spirited  Virginia  Conference,  the  project  failed. 

Dr.  Nathan  Bangs  gives  a  slightly  different  version 
of  the  matter.  He  says : 

"This  year  a  paper  was  submitted  to  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, beginning  with  the  Baltimore  Conference,  by  Bishop 
Asbury,  in  favor  of  calling  a  General  Conference  of  seven  dele- 
gates from  each  Annual  Conference,  to  meet  in  the  city  of  Bal- 
timore, in  May,  1807,  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  the 
episcopacy.  This  paper  was  referred  to  a  committee  to  con- 
sider and  report  thereon ;  and  all  the  Conferences  except  Vir- 
ginia reported  in  favor  of  the  proposition,  and  elected  their 
delegates  accordingly.  The  report  set  forth,  that  in  conse- 
quence of  the  declining  health  of  Bishop  Whatcoat — who  was 
then  supposed  to  be  near  his  end-s-the  great  extension  of  our 
work  over  the  continent,  and  the  debilitated  state  of  Bishop 
Asbury's  health,  it  had  become  necessary  to  strengthen 
the  episcopacy,  and  likewise  to  provide  for  a  more  permanent 
mode  of  Church  government.  The  report  therefore  recom- 
mended Ibat  each  of  the  seven  Annual  Conferences  should 
elect  neven  delegates  to  meet  in  the  city  of  Baltimore  the  suc- 
ceeding May,  and  that,  when  so  met,  they  should  have  power 


'  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  pp.  344,  845. 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  343 

to  elect  one  bishop  or  more,  and  also  to  provide  for  a  future 
delegated  General  Conference,  whose  powers  should  be  defined 
and  limited  by  constitutional  restrictions;  for  hitherto  the 
General  Conference  possessed  unlimited  powers  over  our  en- 
tire economy — could  alter,  abolish,  or  add  to  any  article  of 
religion  or  any  rule  of  Discipline.  As  this  depositary  of  power 
was  considered  too  great  for  the  safety  of  the  Church  and  the 
security  of  its  government  and  doctrine  ;  and  as  the  assembling 
of  all  the  elders,  few  or  many  at  the  option  of  each  Annual 
Conference,  made  the  representation  very  unequal ;  and  more- 
over if  all  came  who  had  a  right  to  a  seat,  involved  a  great 
amount  of  expense,  time,  and  money, — Bishop  Asbury  was  ex- 
ceedingly desirous,  before  he  should  depart  hence,  to  provide 
a  remedy  for  these  evils ;  and  this  desire  was  strengthened 
and  excited  to  action  at  this  time  by  the  concurrent  views  and 
wishes  of  most  of  the  oldest  preachers  in  the  Conferences. 

"It  is  proper  to  remark  that  this  plan  was  concurred  in 
and  the  delegates  were  elected  by  all  the  Annual  Conferences 
until  it  was  submitted  to  the  Virginia  Conference,  where, 
being  warmly  opposed  by  the  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  who  had  great 
influence  in  that  Conference,  a  majority  voted  against  its 
adoption,  and  so  the  whole  plan  was  abandoned  for  the  present ; 
for  it  was  the  understanding  that,  unless  all  the  Conferences 
concurred  in  the  measure,  it  should  not  be  carried  into  effect. 
This  defeat  of  a  favorite  project  so  feasible  in  itself,  and  ap- 
parently so  necessary  to  the  prosperity  of  the  Church  and  the 
perpetuity  of  her  institutions,  was  a  source  of  great  grief  to 
Bishop  A  sbury  as  well  as  of  regret  to  those  who  had  concurred 
in  his  views." x 

So  Dr.  Bangs  appears  to  attribute  the  movement 
to  Bishop  Asbury,  and  says  the  Baltimore  was  the 
first  Conference  to  take  it  up ;  but  Lee  may  be  right 
in  saying  it  originated  in  the  New  York  Conference, 
at  least  among  its  members. 

However  this  may  be,  serious  objections  may  be 

i  N.  Bangs,  D.  D.,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  1853, 
3d  Ed.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  177, 178. 


344    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

raised  against  the  project  even  as  stated  by  Dr. 
Bangs;  for  he  only  shifts  the  responsibility. 

Later,  however,  the  New  York  Conference  re- 
newed the  idea  of  a  delegated  General  Conference  in 
an  unobjectionable  way. 

On  the  7th  of  May,  1807,  the  New  York  Con- 
ference drew  up  and  adopted  a  memorial  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  praying  for  the  creation  of  "  a  rep- 
resentative delegated  General  Conference"  to  take 
the  place  of  that  which  was  composed  of  all  the 
traveling  preachers  in  full  connection  at  the  time  of 
holding  the  Conference,  and  had  traveled  four  years 
from  the  time  that  they  were  received  on  trial  by  an 
Annual  Conference. 

In  this  memorial  there  was  a  request  that  the 
preachers  in  all  the  Annual  Conferences  which  would 
meet  before  the  session  of  the  General  Conference  of 
1808  join  in  the  memorial  to  the  General  Conference. 

The  memorial  is  as  follows: 

•«  THE  MEMORIAL  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  CONFERENCE  TO  THE 
GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES,  TO  SIT  IN  BALTIMORE, 
THE  SIXTH  OF  MAY,  1808: 

"  VERY  DEAR  BRETHREN, — We,  as  one  of  the  seven  eyes  of 
the  great  and  increasing  body  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States,  which  is  composed  of  about  five 
hundred  traveling  preachers  and  about  two  thousand  local 
preachers,  together  with  upward  of  one  hundred  and  forty 
thousand  members;  these,  with  our  numerous  congregations 
and  families,  spread  over  an  extent  of  country  more  than 

two miles  from  one  end  to  the  other,  amounting  in  all 

probability  to  more  than  one  million  of  souls,  which  are  di- 
rectly or  remotely  under  our  pastoral  oversight  ami  minis- 
terial charge,  should  engage  our  most  sacred  attention,  and 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  345 

should  call  into  exertion  all  the  wisdom  and  talents  we  are 
possessed  of  to  perpetuate  the  unity  and  prosperity  of  the 
whole  Connection,  and  to  establish  such  regulations,  rules,  and 
forms  of  government  as  may,  by  the  blessing  of  God  in  Jesus 
Christ,  promote  the  cause  of  that  religion  which  is  more 
precious  to  us  than  riches,  honor,  or  life  itself,  and  be  con- 
ducive to  the  salvation  of  souls  among  the  generations  yet  un- 
born. The  fields  are  white  unto  harvest  before  us,  and  the 
opening  prospect  of  the  great  day  of  glory  brightens  continu- 
ally in  our  view ;  and  we  are  looking  forward  with  hopeful 
expectations  for  the  universal  spread  of  Scriptural  truth  and 
holiness  over  the  inhabitable  globe.  Brethren,  for  what  have 
we  labored;  for  what  have  we  suffered;  for  what  have  we 
borne  the  reproach  of  Christ,  with  much  long-suffering,  with 
tears  and  with  sorrow,  but  to  serve  the  great  and  eternal  purpose 
of  the  grace  of  God  in  the  present  and  everlasting  felicity  of 
immortal  souls  ?  When  we  take  a  serious  and  impartial  view  of 
this  important  subject,  and  consider  the  extent  of  our  Connec- 
tion, the  number  of  our  preachers,  the  great  inconvenience,  ex- 
pense, and  loss  of  time  that  must  necessarily  result  from  our 
present  regulations  relative  to  our  General  Conference,  we  are 
deeply  impressed  with  a  thorough  conviction  that  a  represent- 
ative or  delegated  General  Conference,  composed  of  a  specific 
number  on  principles  of  equal  representation  from  the  several 
Annual  Conferences,  would  be  much  more  conducive  to  the 
prosperity  and  general  unity  of  the  whole  body,  than  the  pres- 
ent indefinite  and  numerous  body  of  ministers,  collected  to- 
gether unequally  from  the  various  Conferences,  to  the  great  in- 
convenience of  the  ministry  and  injury  of  the  work  of  God. 
We  therefore  present  unto  you  this  memorial,  requesting  that 
you  will  adopt  the  principle  of  an  equal  representation  from 
the  Annual  Conferences,  to  form,  in  future,  a  delegated  Gen- 
eral Conference,  and  that  you  will  establish  such  rules  and 
regulations  as  are  necessary  to  carry  the  same  into  effect. 

"  As  we  are  persuaded  that  our  brethren  in  general,  from 
a  view  of  the  situation  and  circumstances  of  the  connection, 
must  be  convinced,  upon  mature  and  impartial  reflection,  of 
the  propriety  and  necessity  of  the  measure,  we  forbear  to 
enumerate  the  various  reasons  and  arguments  which  might  be 
urged  in  support  of  it  But  we  do  hereby  instruct,  advise,  and 

23 


346    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

request  every  member  who  shall  go  from  our  Conference  to 
the  General  Conference  to  urge,  if  necessary,  every  reason  and 
argument  in  favor  of  the  principle,  and  to  use  all  their  Chris- 
tian influence  to  have  the  same  adopted  and  carried  into  effect. 

"  And  we  also  sliall,  arid  do,  invite  and  request  oar 
brethren  in  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  which  are  to  sit 
between  this  and  the  General  Conference,  to  join  and  unite 
with  us  in  the  subject  matter  of  this  memorial.  We  do  hereby 
candidly  and  openly  express  our  opinion,  and  wish,  with  the 
firmest  attachment  to  the  union  and  prosperity  of  the  connec- 
tion, hoping  and  praying  that  our  Chief  Shepherd  and  Bishop 
of  our  Souls,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  may  direct  you  in  all  wis- 
dom, righteousness,  brotherly  love,  and  Christian  unity. 

"  We  are,  dear  brethren,  in  the  bonds  of  gospel  ties,  most 
affectionately  yours,  etc. 

"  By  order  and  in  behalf  of  the  New  York  Conference, 
without  a  dissenting  vote. 

"  (Signed,)          FRANCIS  WARD,  Secretary. 

"  COETMANS  PATENT,  May  7,  1807."  1 

Following  the  memorial  from  the  New  York  Con- 
ference, the  Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of 
1808  gives  the  following  certificates: 

"The  Eastern  Conference1  unamiously  voted  to  concur 
with  the  New  York  Conference  in  the  subject  matter  of  the 
above  memorial.  "THOMAS  BRANCH,  Secretary. 

"BOSTON  CONFERENCE,  June  3,  1807." 

"The  Western  Conference  unanimously  voted  to  concur 
with  the  New  York  Conference  in  the  subject  matter  of  the 
above  memorial.  "  WILLIAM  BURKE,  Secretary. 

"  CHILLICOTHE,  O.,  September  16, 1807." 

"The  South  Carolina  Conference,  with  the  exception  of 
five  members,  concur  with  the  New  York  Conference  in  the 
above  memorial.  "  LEWIS  MYERS,  Secretary. 

"JANUARY  2,  1808."* 


'  General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  pp.  77-78. 

*  In  the  Journal  called  also  the  New  England  Conference. 

•General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  pp.  77, 78. 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  347 

At  that  time  there  were  seven  Annual  Conferences. 
It  therefore  appears  that,  for  some  reason,  the  Vir- 
ginia, Baltimore,  and  Philadelphia  Conferences  did 
not  concur.  Possibly  the  memorial  was  not  sent,  or 
was  not  sent  in  time,  to  these  Conferences;  but  as  to 
this  we  have  no  information. 

As  it  was,  the  measure  had  the  unanimous  sup- 
port of  a  majority  of  the  Conferences,  though  the 
three  Conferences  which  had  not  concurred  were 
stronger  in  every  way  than  the  four  above  named. 

Jesse  Lee,  referring  to  the  General  Conference  of 
1808,  remarks  that  "the  two  hundred  and  nineteenth 
[Conference]  was  the  fifth  General  Conference,  held  in 
Baltimore  on  the  6th  of  May." l  Again  he  says : 
"In  the  month  of  May  we  had  our  fifth  and  last 
General  Conference." 2  By  this  he  evidently  meant 
the  last  general  meeting  of  all  the  ministers  who  were 
in  full  membership  and  had  traveled  four  years  from 
the  time  they  had  been  received  on  trial  in  an  Annual 
Conference.  Other  General  Conferences  were  held  after- 
ward, but  they  were  not  composed  of  the  ministers  gen- 
erally. It  will  now  be  our  purpose  to  give  a  detailed 
history  of  the  transactions  in  the  General  Conference 
of  1808,  which  were  based  on  the  appeal  for  a  dele- 
gated General  Conference ;  and  in  this  narration  we 
will  cite  the  exact  language  of  the  Journal  of  that 
body.  On  Monday  afternoon,  May  9,  1808,  the 
memorial  was  read  in  the  General  Conference,  but 
no  action  was  taken  that  day. 3  The  next  morning 

'Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  315.       » Id.,  p.  8*7. 
'General  Conference  Journal  for  1808,  p.  78. 


348    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"  Bishop  Asbury  called  for  the  mind  of  the  Confer- 
ence, whether  any  further  regulation  in  the  order  of 
the  General  Conference  be  necessary;  the  question 
was  put,  and  carried  in  the  affirmative." ' 

It  was  "  moved  by  Stephen  G.  Roszel,  and  sec- 
onded by  William  Burke,  that  a  committee  be  ap- 
pointed to  draw  up  such  regulations  as  they  may 
think  best,  to  regulate  the  General  Conferences,  and 
report  the  same  to  this  Conference.  Carried."  2 

The  next  motion  will  probably  excite  surprise  in 
the  minds  of  those  who  are  not  familiar  with  the 
nature  of  the  early  General  Conferences. 

It  was  "moved  by  Bishop  Asbury  that  the  com- 
mittee be  formed  from  an  equal  number  from  each  of 
the  Annual  Conferences.  Carried."8 

At  that  time  the  bishops  were  members  of  the 
General  Conference,  which  was  not  a  delegated  body, 
but  an  assemblage  of  the  elders  or  of  the  ministers 
who  were  in  full  membership  in  an  Annual  Conference, 
and  had  traveled  at  least  four  years  from  the  time 
they  had  been  received  on  probation  in  an  Annual 
Conference.  On  that  basis  the  bishops  had  equal 
rights  on  the  floor  with  other  presbyters. 

It  was  then  "moved  by  John  McClaskey,  and 
seconded  by  Joseph  Aydelott,  that  the  committee  con- 
sist of  three  members  from  each  Annual  Conference, 
to  be  chosen  by  their  own  members  present.  Lost." 4 

Then  it  was  "  moved  by  Stephen  G.  Roszel,  and 


'General  Conference  Journal,  1808,  p.  78.  *  Id.,  p.  78. 
•  General  Conference  Journal,  Ed.  1855,  Vol.  I,  1808,  p.79t 
'General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  79. 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  349 

seconded  by  William  Burke,  that  the  committee  be 
formed  by  two  from  each  of  the  Conferences,  chosen 
by  their  respective  Conferences.  Carried."1 
-'".  •  The  following  preachers,  namely,  "Ezekiel  Cooper 
and  John  Wilson  from  the  New  York,  George  Pick- 
ering and  Joshua  Soule  from  the  New  England  Con- 
ference, William  McKendree  and  William  Burke 
from  the  Western,  William  Phoebus  and  Josias  Ran- 
dle  from  the  South  Carolina,  Philip  Bruce  and  Jesse 
Lee  from  the  Virginia,  Stephen  G.  Roszel  and  Nelson 
Reed  from  the  Baltimore,  and  John  McClaskey  and 
Thomas  Ware  from  Philadelphia  Conference,  were 
elected"  the  committee.2 

This  committee  did  not  bring  in  a  report  until 
Monday  morning,  May  16th.  That  morning  the  first 
recorded  item  of  business  is  as  follows: 

"  Read  the  report  of  the  committee  relative  to  regulating 
and  perpetuating  General  Conferences."* 

Then  the  report  was  entered,  as  follows : 

"WHEREAS,  It  is  of  the  greatest  importance  that  the  doc- 
trines, form  of  government,  and  general  rules  of  the  United 
Societies  in  America  be  preserved  sacred  and  inviolable; 

"And  WHEREAS,  Every  prudent  measure  should  be  taken 
to  preserve,  strengthen,  and  perpetuate  the  union  of  the  Con- 
nection ; 

"Therefore,  your  committee,  upon  the  maturest  deliber- 
ation, have  thought  it  advisable  that  the  third  section  of  the 
Form  of  Discipline  shall  be  as  follows,  viz. : 

"SECTION  III.    OP  THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE. 

"1st.  The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  dele- 
gates from  the  Annual  Conferences. 


'General  Conference  Journal,  1808,  Vol.  I,  p.  79. 

•  General  Conference  Journal,  Ed.  185d,  Vol.  I,  p.  79.  'Id.,  p.  81. 


350   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"2d.  The  delegates  shall  be  chosen  by  ballot,  without  de 
bate,  in  the  Annual  Conferences  respectively,  in  the  last 
meeting  of  Conference  previous  to  the  meeting  of  the  General 
Conference. 

"3d.  Each  Annual  Conference  respectively  shall  have  a 
right  to  send  seven  elders,  members  of  their  Conference,  as 
delegates  to  the  General  Conference. 

"4th.  Each  Annual  Conference  shall  have  a  right  to  send 
one  delegate,  in  addition  to  the  seven,  for  every  ten  membeis 
belonging  to  such  Conference  over  and  above  fifty — so  that  if 
there  be  sixty  members,  they  shall  send  eight;  if  seventy, 
they  shall  send  nine ;  and  so  on,  in  proportion. 

"5th.  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  day 
of  May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  eighteen  hundred  and  twelve, 
and  thenceforward  on  the  first  day  of  May,  once  in  four  years 
perpetually,  at  such  place  or  places  as  shall  be  fixed  on  by  the 
General  Conference  from  time  to  time. 

"6th.  At  all  times,  when  the  General  Conference  is  met, 
it  shall  take  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  delegates  to 
form  a  quorum. 

"7th.  One  of  the  original  superintendents  shall  preside 
in  the  General  Conference ;  but  in  case  no  general  superin- 
tendent be  present,  the  General  Conference  shall  choose  a 
president  pro  tern. 

"8th.  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to 
make  rules,  regulations,  and  canons  for  our  Church,  under  the 
following  limitations  and  restrictions,  viz. : 

"The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or 
change  our  Articles  of  Religion,  nor  establish  any  new  stand- 
ards of  doctrine. 

"They  shall  not  lessen  the  number  of  seven  delegates 
from  each  Annual  Conference,  nor  allow  of  a  greater  number 
from  any  Annual  Conference  than  is  provided  in  the  fourth 
paragraph  of  this  section. 

"They  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our 
government  so  as  to  do  away  episcopacy,  or  to  destroy  the 
plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency. 

"  They  shall  not  revoke  or  change  the  General  Rules  of  the 
United  Societies. 

"  They  shall  not  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  ministers 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  351 

or  preachers  of  trial  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal ;  neither 
shall  they  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  members  of  trial 
before  the  society,  or  by  a  committee,  [and  ?]  of  an  appeal. 

"They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book 
Concern  or  of  the  Charter  Fund  to  any  purpose  other  than 
for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling,  superannuated,  supernu- 
merary, and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and 
children. 

"Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint  recommen- 
dation of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  then  a  majority  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  General  Conference  succeeding  shall  suffice  to 
alter  any  of  the  above  restrictions."1 

This  committee  proposed,  therefore,  that  the  doc- 
trines, forms  of  government,  and  the  General  Rules 
should  be  protected  and  preserved.  As  a  means  to 
this  end,  it  proposed  the  formation  of  a  General  Con- 
ference. In  the  plan  for  its  creation,  it  makes  it  a 
representative  body;  recognizes  the  right  of  every 
Conference  to  representation  and  in  proportion  to  its 
membership;  suggests  the  principle  of  election  by 
ballot;  gives  the  General  Conference  full  power  to 
make  "rules,  regulations,  and  canons"  for  the  Church, 
under  certain  specified  restrictions;  and  provides  a 
method  for  amending  these  restrictions,  which  declares 
the  proposed  amendment  must  originate  in  the  An- 
nual Conferences. 

Among  the  peculiar  points  in  this  report  is  the 
phrase,  "original  superintendents."  What  is  meant 
by  this?  Coke  and  Asbury  were  "original  superin- 
tendents," in  the  sense  that  they  were  the  first  se- 
lected by  Wesley,  and  the  first  elected  by  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  General  Conference 


» General  Conference  Journal,  1808,  pp.  82,83. 


352  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

assembled.  Whatcoat  had  died  in  1806.  At  this 
General  Conference  of  1808,  and  on  the  12th  of 
May — four  days  before  the  report  was  presented — 
William  McKendree  was  elected  to  the  office  of 
bishop.1  Bishop  Coke  was  out  of  the  country,  and 
the  Conference,  on  the  9th  of  May,  had  passed  the 
following: 

"  Resolved,  That  Dr.  Coke's  name  shall  be  retained  on  our 
Minutes  after  the  name  of  the  bishop,  in  a  N.  B. — '  Doctor 
Coke,  at  the  request  of  the  British  Conference  and  by  the  con- 
sent of  General  Conference,  resides  in  Europe ;'  he  is  not  to 
exercise  the  office  of  superintendent  or  bishop  among  us  in 
the  United  States  until  he  be  recalled  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence, or  by  all  the  Annual  Conferences  respectively."1 

This  practically  deposed  Bishop  Coke  until  he 
should  be  called  as  above.  Of  course  this  kind  of  a 
displacement  was  merely  because  he  was  out  of  the 
country  much  of  the  time,  and  because  his  attention 
was  given  largely  to  the  interests  of  Methodism  in 
Great  Britain  and  her  missions  in  the  British  pos- 
sessions. 

If  "original"  meant  one  of  the  first  elected, 
then,  according  to  this  proposition,  Bishop  Asbury 
was  the  only  bishop  who  could  preside,  and  Bishop 
McKendree  and  others  who  might  be  elected  could 
not  preside  over  the  General  Conference,  at  least  as 
long  as  Asbury  was  present. 

The  title  "general  superintendent"  appears  in 
this  report  probably  for  the  first  time  in  any  formal 
or  official  document;  but  from  this  time  it  comes 
into  common  use. 


i General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  8L  Id  ,  p.  78. 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  353 

As  soon  as  the  report  had  been  read,  it  was 
"  voted  that  the  Conference  proceed  immediately  to 
the  subject  of  the  report  of  the  committee,"  l  and  in 
the  afternoon  of  the  same  day  the  Conference  "  con- 
tinued the  debate  on  the  report  of  the  committee  of 
fourteen."  2 

Bangs  says  the  report  was  discussed  "for  one 
whole  day."3 

After  debate,  and  probably  toward  the  close  of 
the  afternoon  session  of  May  1 6th,  it  was  "  moved 
by  Ezekiel  Cooper,  and  seconded  by  Joshua  Wells, 
to  postpone  the  present  question  to  make  room  for 
the  consideration  of  a  new  resolution,  as  prepara- 
tory to  the  minds  of  the  brethren  to  determine  the 
present  subject," 4  and  the  motion  prevailed. 

It  was  then  "moved  by  Ezekiel  Cooper,  and  sec- 
onded by  Joshua  Wells, the  following  resolution,  viz.: 

"  Resolved,  That  in  the  fifth  section  of  Discipline,  after  the 
question,  'By  whom  shall  the  presiding  eMers  be  chosen?' 
the  answer  shall  be,  'Ans.  1.  Each  Annual  Conference  re- 
spectively, without  debate,  shall  annually  choose,  by  ballot, 
its  own  presiding  elders.' "5 

The  next  day  was  devoted  to  the  presiding  elder 
question,  and  a  motion  to  postpone  was  lost  by  a 
vote  of  fifty-nine  nays  to  fifty-six  ayes. 

On  the  following  morning  May  18th,  a  ballot 
vote  was  taken  on  the  motion  for  electing  pre- 


i  General  Conference  Journal,  1808,  p.  83. 
(General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  83. 

•Nathan  Bangs,  D.  D.,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
New  York,  1X53,  3d  Ed.,  Vol.  II,  p.  231. 

« General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  83.  •  IbidL 


354    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

fiiding  elders,  and  fifty-two  voted  in  the  affirmative 
and  seventy  three  in  the  negative;  so  the  motion 
was  lost.1 

On  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day  (Wednesday, 
May  18th)  the  report  of  "  the  committee  of  fourteen," 
as  it  was  called,  was  taken  up,  and  it  was  "  moved 
by  John  McClaskey,  and  seconded  by  Daniel 
Ostrander,  that  the  vote  on  the  first  resolution  of  the 
report  of  the  committee  of  fourteen  be  taken  by  bal- 
lot." The  motion  was  carried,  and  "  the  first  resolu- 
tion of  the  report  of  the  commitee  of  fourteen  being 
put  to  vote,  there  were  yeas,  fifty-seven;  nays,  sixty- 
four,"  and  the  resolution  was  lost. 2 

Bangs  states  "  the  entire  report  was  rejected  by  a 
majority  of  seven  votes."3 

The  Journal  states  that  "the  first  resolution"  was 
voted  down;  but  probably  both  statements  harmo- 
nize ;  for  the  first  resolution  was  that  "  the  General 
Conference  shall  be  composed  of  delegates  from  the 
Annual  Conferences,"  and  to  vote  this  down  was  to 
vote  against  the  whole  idea  of  a  delegated  General 
Conference.  Possibly  the  proposal  that  only  an 
"original  superintendent"  could  preside  had  some- 
thing to  do  with  the  rejection  of  the  report. 

On  Monday  morning,  May  23,  1808,  consideration 
of  the  subject  was  resumed,  and  it  was  "  moved  by 
Enoch  George,  and  seconded  by  Stephen  G.  Roszel, 
that  the  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of 
one  member  for  every  five  members  of  each  Annual 

1  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  p.  84.  •  Ibid, 

*N.  Bangs,  D.  I).,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  1853 
Sd  Ed.,  Vol.  II,  p.  23J. 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  355 

Conference/7  and  this  was  "  carried  by  a  very  large 
majority."1 

This  showed  a  desire  to  keep  the  representation 
as  large  as  possible.  Immediately  after  the  adoption 
of  the  previous  motion,  it  was  "  moved  by  Joshua 
Soule,  and  seconded  by  George  Pickering,  that  each 
Annual  Conference  shall  have  the  power  of  sending 
their  proportionate  number  of  members  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  either  by  seniority  or  choice,  as  they 
shall  think  best."2 

In  the  Minutes  of  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day 
appears  the  record  that  "  Brother  Joshua  Soule's 
motion  of  this  morning,  being  put  to  vote,  was 
carried."3 

"  Moved  by  Stephen  G.  Roszel,  and  seconded  by 
George  Pickering,  that  the  next  General  Conference 
be  held  on  the  1st  of  May,  1812.  Carried."4 

"  Moved  by  William  Thatcher,  and  seconded  by 
Joseph  Crawford,  that  the  next  General  Conference 
be  held  in  New  York.  For  New  York,  fifty-six  ;  for 
Baltimore,  forty-eight.  Carried."6 

Heretofore  all  the  General  Conferences  had  been 
held  in  Baltimore ;  now,  for  the  first  time,  it  is  agreed 
to  hold  one,  and  that  the  first  delegated  General  Con- 
ference, in  the  city  of  New  York. 

Then  it  was  "  moved  by  Stephen  G.  Roszel,  and 
seconded  by  Jesse  Lee,  that  it  shall  take  two-thirds  ot 
the  representatives  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  to 
form  a  quorum  for  business  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence. For  it,  53;  against  it,  46.  Carried."6 

>  General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  88.  •  Ibid. 


356   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

The  next,  day,  Tuesday,  May  24th,  it  was  "moved 
by  Jesse  Lee,  and  seconded  by  William  Burke,  that 
the  next  General  Conference  shall  not  change  or  alter 
any  part  or  rule  of  our  government,  so  as  to  do  away 
episcopacy,  or  to  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant 
general  superintendency.  Carried."1 

"  Moved  by  Stephen  G.  Roszel,  and  seconded  by 
George  Pickering,  that  one  of  the  superintendents 
preside  in  the  General  Conference ;  but  in  case  of  the 
absence  of  a  superintendent,  the  Conference  shall  elect 
a  president  pro  tern.  Carried."2 

"Moved  by  Stephen  G.  Roszel,  and  seconded  by 
Nelson  Reed,  that  the  General  Conference  shall  have 
full  powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  our 
Church,  under  the  following  restrictions,  viz.: 

"1.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke, 
alter,  or  change  our  Articles  of  Religion,  nor  estab- 
lish any  new  standards  or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary 
to  our  present  existing  and  established  standards  of 
doctrine.  Carried. 

"  2.  They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  rep- 
resentative for  every  five  members  of  the  Annual 
Conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less  number  than  one  for 
every  seven.  Carried."3 

At  this  point  there  seems  to  have  been  an  inter- 
ruption, for  it  was  "  moved  by  Daniel  Hitt,  and  sec- 
onded by  Samuel  Coate,  that  a  committee  of  three 
be  appointed  to  modify  certain  exceptionable  expres- 
sions in  the  General  Rules.  Lost."* 


i  General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  89.  •  Ibid.  *Ibid 

«JBML 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  357 

Then  consideration  of  Mr.  Roszel's  proposition 
was  resumed,  as  follows: 

"3.  They  shall  not  revoke  or  change  the  '  Gen- 
eral Rules  of  the  United  Societies/  Carried. 

"  4.  They  shall  not  do  away  the  privileges  of  our 
ministers  or  preachers  of  trial  by  a  committee,  and 
of  an  appeal;  neither  shall  they  do  away  the  privi- 
leges of  our  members  of  trial  before  the  society,  or  by 
a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal.  Carried. 

"  5.  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the 
Book  Concern  or  of  the  Charter  Fund  to  any  pur- 
pose other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling,  su- 
pernumerary, superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers, 
their  wives,  widows,  and  children.  Carried. 

"6.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint 
recommendation  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  then 
a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference 
succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  the  above  re- 
strictions. Carried." l 

On  the  afternoon  of  that  day,  May  24th,  it  was 
"  moved  by  Daniel  Ostrander,  and  seconded  by  Eze- 
kiel  Cooper,  that  the  general  superintendents,  with 
or  by  the  advice  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  or, 
if  there  be  no  general  superintendent,  all  the  Annual 
Conferences  respectively,  shall  have  power  to  call  a 
General  Conference,  if  they  judge  it  necessary  at  any 
time.  Carried."2 

It  was  then  "  moved  by  the  chair  that  the  General 
Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  day  of  May,  once 
in  four  years,  perpetually,  at  such  place  or  places  as 

>  General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  88.       *  Id.,  p.  DO. 


358    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

shall  be  fixed  on  by  the  General  Conference  from 
time  to  time.  Carried."1 

On  the  afternoon  of  the  last  day  of  the  session, 
and  the  closing  session,  May  26th,  it  was  "  moved  by 
Joseph  Totten,  and  seconded  by  Stephen  G.  Roszel, 
that  no  preacher  shall  be  sent  as  a  representative  to  the 
General  Conference  until  he  has  traveled  at  least  four 
full  calendar  years  from  the  time  that  he  was  received 
on  trial  by  an  Annual  Conference,  and  is  in  full  con- 
nection at  the  time  of  holding  the  Conference.  Car- 
ried."2 

This  is  a  verbatim  statement  of  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1808,  as  contained  in  the 
Journal  of  that  Conference. 

The  order  of  voting  seems  peculiar,  and  the  rec- 
ord appears  to  be  greatly  condensed.  It  is  not  stated 
that  the  resolutions  adopted  were  presented  as  amend- 
ments to,  or  substitute  for,  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee ;  but  the  irregular  way  in  which  they  were 
introduced  by  various  individuals,  gives  them  the  ap- 
pearance of  individual  and  independent  motions. 

The  order,  perhaps,  is  not  very  parliamentary,  if 
the  resolutions  are  to  be  considered  as  amendments 
to  the  report;  but  the  probable  explanation  is  that 
the  report,  which  had  been  voted  down,  was  not  re- 
considered; but  the  matter  was  brought  up  piece- 
meal by  various  parties,  and  it  will  be  noticed  that 
there  are  variations  from  the  language  of  the  report. 
Thus,  in  the  seventh  resolution  of  the  committee  the 
title  "general  superintendent"  is  used;  but  in  the 

» General  Conference  Journal,  Vol.  I,  p.  90.       »  Id.,  p.  06. 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  359 

resolution  as  proposed  by  Mr.  Roszel,  the  title  is  sim- 
ply "superintendent."  Again,  the  report  had  no 
provision  for  calling  an  extra  session  of  the  General 
Conference ;  but  Mr.  Ostrander's  resolution  had  such 
a  provision. 

To  recapitulate,  we  find  that  on  a  ballot  vote  the 
first  resolution  of  the  committee  was  not  agreed  to 
on  May  18th. 

Then  nothing  appears  to  have  been  done  until 
May  23d,  when  on  the  motion  of  Enoch  George,  it 
was  decided  that  "the  General  Conference  shall  be 
composed  of  one  member  for  every  five  members  of 
each  Annual  Conference." 

This  appears  to  have  taken  the  place  of  Resolu- 
tions 3  and  4  of  the  Committee's  report. 

Then  came  Joshua  Soule's  motion  that  "  each  An- 
nual Conference  shall  have  the  power  of  sending 
their  proportionate  number  of  members  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  either  by  seniority  or  choice,  as  they 
shall  think  best." 

Then  followed  Stephen  G.  Roszel's  motion,  that 
"  the  next  General  Conference  be  held  on  the  first 
day  of  May,  1812." 

Then  William  Thatcher's  motion,  that  "  the  next 
General  Conference  be  held  in  New  York." 

Then  Stephen  G.  Roszel's  motion,  that  "  it  shall 
take  two-thirds  of  the  representatives  of  all  the  An- 
nual Conferences  to  form  a  quorum  for  business  in 
the  General  Conference." 

Then  came  Jesse  Lee's  motion,  that  "the  General 
Conference  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule 


300   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

of  our  government,  so  as  to  do  away  episcopacy,  or 
to  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superiu- 
tendency." 

This  is  the  same  as  the  committee's  third  restric- 
tion, with  the  exception  of  the  form  of  opening  the 
paragraph.  The  committee  had  "They  shall  not 
change,"  etc.  Lee  made  it  "The  General  Conference 
shall  not  change,"  etc.,  which  is  better  style. 

Then  followed  Stephen  G.  Roszel's  motion,  that 
"  One  of  the  superintendents  preside  in  the  General 
Conference;  but  in  case  of  the  absence  of  a  superin- 
tendent, the  Conference  shall  elect  a  president^ro  tern.'' 

This  is  the  substance  of  the  committee's  seventh 
paragraph,  with  verbal  alterations.  The  committee 
had  said  :  "  One  of  the  original  superintendents  shall 
preside,"  etc. 

This,  as  already  observed,  seemed  to  mean  Bishop 
Coke  and  Bishop  Asbury,  and  was  intended  to  confer 
an  honor  or  rank  upon  them  which  the  committee 
did  not  desire  to  give  to  their  successors,  at  least  as 
long  as  the  "original  superintendents,"  named  by 
Mr.  Wesley  and  elected  by  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence of  1784,  survived. 

Then  followed  Stephen  G.  Roszel's  paper  on  the 
powers  of  the  General  Conference,  with  the  limitations 
placed  on  those  powers;  "The  General  Conference 
shall  have  full  powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations 
for  our  Church,  under  the  following  restrictions." 
This  is  similar  to  the  report  of  the  committee,  witli 
the  words  "canons"  and"  limitations  and"  stricken 
out. 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  361 

Mr.  Roszel's  first  restriction  was  the  same  as  the 
committee's  first  restriction,  with  the  addition  of  the 
words  "contrary  to  our  present  existing  and  estab- 
lished standards  of  doctrine,"  so  that  it  read :  "  The 
General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or  change 
our  Articles  of  Religion,  nor  establish  any  new 
standards  or  rules  of  doctrine,  contrary  to  our  present 
existing  and  established  standards  of  doctrine." 

Mr.  Roszel'o  accond  restriction  changed  the  num- 
ber proposed  as  the  basis  of  representation  by  the 
committee,  and  made  a  sliding  scale  between  five  and 
seven,  and  was  as  follows :  "  They  shall  not  allow  of 
more  than  one  representative  for  every  five  members 
of  the  Annual  Conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less  num- 
ber than  one  for  every  seven." 

Mr.  Roszel's  third  restriction  was  the  same  as  the 
committee's  fourth,  namely:  "They  shall  not  revoke 
or  change  the  'General  Rules  of  the  United  So- 
cieties.' " 

His  fourth  restriction  was  the  same  as  the  com- 
mittee's fifth,  but  with  the  insertion  of  the  word 
"  and  "  after  the  word  committee.  The  record  in  the 
published  Journal  reads,  "  by  a  committee  and  of  an 
appeal."  Mr.  Roszel's  reads,  "by  a  committee  and 
of  an  appeal."  The  "and,"  however,  was  probably 
omitted  unintentionally  in  the  committee's  report,  or 
in  the  report  as  printed  in  the  published  Journal. 

Mr.  Roszel's  fifth  restriction  was  the  same  as  the 
committee's  sixth,  but  with  the  transposition  of  the 
words  supernumerary  and  superannuated.  The  com- 
mittee had  the  order  "  traveling,  superannuated, 

24 


362   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

supernumerary,  and  worn-out  preachers,"  but  Mr. 
Hoszel  gave  that  which  was  a  more  natural  order; 
namely,  "traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated, 
and  worn-out  preachers ;"  for  the  usual  course  is  for 
the  active  minister  to  become  a  supernumerary  min- 
ister before  he  goes  on  the  superannuated  list. 

Mr.  Roszel's  provision  as  to  amendments  to  the 
restrictions  is  the  same  as  the  proviso  presented  by 
the  committee. 

Then  came  Daniel  Ostrander's  provision  for  call- 
ing an  extra  session  of  the  General  Conference,  a 
point  for  which  the  committee  had  made  no  provision. 

At  this  point  the  bishop  appears  to  have  called  at- 
tention to  a  matter  mentioned  by  the  committee,  but 
on  which  the  Conference  had  not  taken  action. 

The  Conference  had,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Roszel, 
agreed  that  "  the  next  Conference  be  held  on  the  first 
day  of  May,  1812,"  but  no  provision  was  made  for 
subsequent  General  Conferences  or  at  what  interval 
they  should  meet.  So  the  bishop's  motion  that  "  the 
General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  day  of 
May,  once  in  four  years  perpetually,  at  such  place  or 
places  as  shall  be  fixed  on  by  the  General  Conference 
from  time  to  time." 

This  is  the  same  as  the  paragraph  reported  by 
the  committee,  with  the  exception  that  the  words  "  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  eighteen  hundred  and  twelve, 
and  thenceforward  on  the  1st  day  of  May,"  were 
omitted. 

At  the  closing  session  it  appears  to  have  been 
discovered  that  on  the  part  of  delegates  there  should 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  363 

be  further  qualification  than  mere  membership  in  an 
Annual  Conference,  the  only  qualification  which  prior 
to  this  had  been  suggested  by  either  the  committee 
or  the  Conference. 

So,  on  Joseph  Totten's  motion,  it  was  agreed  that 
"no  preacher  shall  be  sent  as  a  representative  to  the 
General  Conference  until  he  has  traveled  at  least  four 
full  calendar  years  from  the  time  that  he  was  received 
on  trial  by  an  Annual  Conference,  and  is  in  full  con- 
nection at  the  time  of  holding  the  Conference." 

If  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  be  ar- 
ranged in  chronological  order,  it  will  give  us  the  fol- 
lowing result : 

"The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  one  mem- 
ber for  every  five  members  of  each  Annual  Conference." 

"  Each  Annual  Conference  shall  have  the  power  of  send- 
ing their  proportionate  number  of  members  to  the  General 
Conference,  either  by  seniority  or  choice,  as  they  shall  think 
best." 

"  The  next  General  Conference  shall  be  held  on  the  1st  day 
of  May,  1812." 

"  The  next  General  Conference  shall  be  held  in  New  York." 

"It  shall  take  two-thirds  of  the  representatives  of  all 
the  Annual  Conferences  to  form  a  quorum  for  business  in  the 
General  Conference." 

"  The  next  General  Conference  shall  not  change  or  alter 
any  part  or  rule  of  our  government,  so  as  to  do  away  episco- 
pacy, or  to  destroy*  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superin- 
tendency." 

"  That  one  of  the  superintendents  preside  in  the  General 
Conference ;  but  in  case  of  the  absence  of  a  superintendent, 
the  Conference  shall  elect  a  president  pro  tern." 

"  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to  make 
rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church  under  the  following  re- 
strictions: 

"  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,   niter,  or 


364   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

change  our  articles  of  religion,  nor  establish  any  new  stand- 
ards or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to  our  present  existing  and 
established  standards  of  doctrine. 

"2.  They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  representa- 
tive for  every  five  members  of  the  Annual  Conference,  nor 
allow  of  a  less  number  than  one  for  every  seven. 

"  3.  They  shall  not  revoke  or  change  the  '  General  Rules  of 
the  United  Societies.' 

"4.  They  shall  not  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  minis- 
ters or  preachers  of  trial  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal ; 
neither  shall  they  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  members  of 
trial  before  the  society,  or  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal. 

"  5.  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book 
Concern,  or  of  the  Charter  Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than 
for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated, 
and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children. 

"6.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint  recom- 
mendation of  all  ,the  Annual  Conferences,  then  a  majority  of 
two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference  succeeding  shall  suffice 
to  alter  any  of  the  above  restrictions. 

"  The  general  superintendents,  with  or  by  the  advice  of 
all  the  Annual  Conferences,  or,  if  there  be  no  general  super- 
intendent, all  the  Annual  Conferences  respectively,  shall  have 
power  to  call  a  General  Conference,  if  they  judge  it  necessary, 
at  any  time. 

"  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  day  of 
May  once  in  four  years,  perpetually,  at  such  place  or  places 
as  shall  be  fixed  on  by  the  General  Conference  from  time 
to  time. 

"  No  preacher  shall  be  sent  as  a  representative  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  until  he  has  traveled  at  least  four  full  calendar 
years  from  the  time  he  was  received  on  trial  by  an  Annual 
Conference,  and  is  in  full  connection  at  the  time  of  holding 
the  Conference." 

As  far  as  the  Journal  shows,  this  is  the  way  this 
matter  was  left  by  the  General  Conference  of  1808 ; 
but  it  is  evident  that  the  chronological  order  is  not 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  365 

the  logical  order,  and  that  a  better  arrangement  of 
the  several  actions  of  the  General  Conference  could 
be  made  without  destroying  the  intention  of  the  Con- 
ference. For  example,  it  is  apparent  that  the  resolu- 
tion forbidding  the  General  Conference  to  take 
certain  action  in  regard  to  the  episcopacy  was  a 
limitation,  and  logically  belonged  to  the  list  of 
restrictions. 

It  is  also  plain  that  the  three  separate  actions  as 
to  the  time  and  place  of  the  next  General  Confer- 
ence and  the  interval  between  the  regular  sessions  of 
the  General  Conference  should  be  combined,  and  that 
the  other  resolutions,  agreed  to  after  the  adoption  of 
the  Restrictive  Rules,  should  be  blended  with  the  para- 
graphs preceding  the  declaration  as  to  the  powers  of 
the  General  Conference. 

The  Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  1808 
does  not  contain  any  order  to  have  these  changes 
made ;  but  some  one,  with  or  without  formal  author- 
ity, must  have  edited  the  several  resolutions  adopted 
by  the  General  Conference  of  that  year;  for  the  Dis- 
cipline of  1808  gives  a  different  arrangement  from 
that  which  would  result  from  the  chronological 
order. 

Though  no  mention  is  made  in  the  Journal,  it  is 
probable  that  there  was  an  understanding  that  some 
person  or  persons  would  group  the  several  actions  in 
a  more  logical  order. 

The  document  appears  in  the  Discipline  of  1808 
as  Question  2,  with  answers  under  "  Section  3,  Of 


3G6  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

the  General  and  Yearly  Conferences,"  with  the  sub- 
heading, "Of  the  General  Conference/'  as  follows: 

"  Ques.  2.  Who  shall  compose  the  General  Conference, 
and  what  are  the  regulations  and  powers  belonging  to  it? 

"  Ans.  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of 
one  member  for  every  five  members  of  each  Annual  Confer- 
ence, to  be  appointed  either  by  seniority  or  choice,  at  the 
discretion  of  such  Annual  Conference ;  yet  so  that  such  rep- 
resentatives shall  have  traveled  at  least  four  full  calendar  years 
from  the  time  that  they  are  received  on  trial  by  an  Annual 
Conference,  and  are  in  full  connection  at  the  time  of  holding 
the  Conference. 

"2.  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  day  of 
May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1812,  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
and  thenceforward  on  the  first  day  of  May  once  in  four  years, 
perpetually,  in  such  place  or  places  as  shall  be  fixed  on  by  the 
General  Conference  from  time  to  time.  But  the  general  su- 
perintendents, with  or  by  the  advice  of  all  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences, or,  if  there  be  no  general  superintendent,  all  the 
Annual  Conferences  respectively,  shall  have  power  to  call  a 
General  Conference,  if  they  judge  it  necessary,  at  any  time. 

"3  At  all  times  when  the  General  Conferences  meet,  it 
shall  take  two-thirds  of  the  representatives  of  all  the  Annual 
Conferences  to  make  a  quorum  for  transacting  business. 

"4.  One  of  the  general  superintendents  shall  preside  in 
the  General  Conference ;  but  in  case  no  general  superintend- 
ent be  present,  the  General  Conference  shall  choose  a  presi- 
dent pro  tempore. 

"5.  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to 
make  rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church,  under  the  follow- 
ing limitations  and  restrictions,  viz. : 

"  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or 
change  our  Articles  of  Religion,  nor  establish  any  new  stand- 
ards or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to  our  present  existing  and 
established  standards  of  doctrine. 

"  2.  They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  representative 
for  every  five  members  of  the  Annual  Conference,  nor  allow 
of  a  less  number  than  one  for  every  seven. 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.    367 

"  3.  They  shall  not  change  nor  alter  any  part  or  rule  of 
onr  government,  so  as  to  do  away  episcopacy  or  destroy  the 
plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency. 

"4.  They  shall  not  revoke  or  change  the  General  Rules  of 
the  United  Societies. 

"5.  They  shall  not  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  ministers 
or  preachers  of  trial  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal. 
Neither  shall  they  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  members  of 
trial  before  the  society  or  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal. 

"6.  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book 
Concern,  or  of  the  Charter  Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than 
for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  superannu- 
ated, and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and 
children. 

"Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint  recommenda- 
tion of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  then  a  majority  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  General  Conference  succeeding  shall  suffice  to 
alter  any  of  the  above  restrictions." 

This  shows  that  some  editing  was  done. 

The  first  answer  contains  a  combination  of  three 
resolutions,  adopted  at  different  times.  The  precise 
sense  is  preserved,  as  is  also  the  wording,  ex- 
cepting that  the  resolution,  that  "each  Annual  Con- 
ference shall  have  the  power  of  sending  their  propor- 
tionate number  of  members  to  the  General  Conference, 
either  by  seniority  or  choice,  as  they  shall  think  best," 
was  changed  to  the  words,  "  to  be  appointed  by  sen- 
iority or  choice,  at  the  discretion  of  such  Annual 
Conference,"  which  may  be  considered  a  better 
phrasing,  though  the  word  appoint  may  be  open  to 
some  criticism. 

In  the  second  is  a  blending  of  four  distinct  ac- 
tions of  the  General  Conference,  with  an  insertion  of 
the  phrase,  "  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,"  which  was  in 
the  report  of  the  committee  of  fourteen,  and  the  word 


368   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"thenceforward"  which  was  evidently  put  in  to  mal<e 
the  connection;  but,  as  far  as  can  be  learned  from  the 
Journal,  neither  this  word  nor  the  phrase  alluded  to 
had  been  adopted  by  the  Conference. 

The  third — that  in  reference  to  a  quorum — is 
considerably  varied  from  the  wording  of  the  act 
of  the  General  Conference,  though  the  sense  is  pre- 
served. The  action  of  the  Conference  was  as  fol- 
lows :  "  It  shall  take  two-thirds  of  the  representatives 
of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  to  form  a  quorum  for 
business  in  the  General  Conference."  The  form  in 
the  Discipline  of  1808  is:  "At  all  times  when  the 
General  Conference  is  met,  it  shall  take  two-thirds  of 
all  the  representatives  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences 
to  make  a  quorum  for  transacting  business."  This, 
as  will  be  seen,  is  almost  the  same  as  the  report  of 
the  committee  of  fourteen,  which  had  these  words : 
"At  all  times  when  the  General  Conference  is  met,  it 
shall  take  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  delegates 
to  form  a  quorum." 

The  fourth  is  slightly  different  from  the  action  of 
the  General  Conference  in  several  particulars.  In- 
stead of  "  one  of  the  superintendents  shall  preside," 
as  was  passed  by  the  General  Conference,  it  has,  "one 
of  the  general  superintendents  shall  preside."  The 
act  of  the  General  Conference  had,  "  in  case  of  the 
absence  of  a  superintendent,  the  Conference  shall 
elect  a  president  pro  tern.;"  but  the  form  put  in  the 
Discipline  of  1808  has,  "in  case  no  general  superin- 
tendent be  present,  the  General  Conference  shall 
choose  a  president  pro  tempore." 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  369 

Here  again  is  seen  a  leaning  toward  the  report  of 
the  committee  of  fourteen,  which  used  the  title 
"original  superintendents"  and  "general  superin- 
tendent," and  the  word  "choose,"  instead  of  the 
word  "elect,"  which  was  the  word  adopted  by  the 
General  Conference. 

In  the  fifth,  on  the  powers  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, the  form  in  the  Discipline  of  1808  uses  the 
words  "limitations  and,"  which  words  were  not  in 
the  action  of  the  General  Conference,  but  which  were 
in  the  report  of  the  committee  of  fourteen. 

The  first  restriction  is  precisely  as  adopted  by  the 
General  Conference,  and  so  is  the  second.  The  third, 
referring  to  episcopacy,  is  the  resolution  of  Jesse  Lee, 
adopted  prior  to  the  consideration  of  Stephen  G.  Ros- 
zePs  paper  on  the  powers  and  restrictions  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  with  a  variation  which  may  be 
deemed  of  some  importance.  The  form  in  the  Dis- 
cipline of  1808  begins,  "They  shall  not  change  or 
alter  any  part  or  rule,"  etc.,  "  so  as  to  do  away  epis- 
copacy," etc.;  but  the  form  as  agreed  upon  by  the 
Conference  was,  "  The  next  General  Conference  shall 
not  change,"  etc. 

It  is  possible,  and  even  probable,  that  Mr.  Roszel 
had  such  a  restriction  in  his  list  of  limitations  of 
power,  but  that  he  dropped  it  out  because  Mr.  Lee 
had  anticipated  him. 

As  it  was  a  restriction,  there  can  be  no  objection 
to  its  arrangement  among  the  restrictions  and  its 
being  placed  as  third,  which  was  the  order  in  the  re- 
port of  the  committee  of  fourteen.  It  is,  however, 


370    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

remarkable  that  the  form  in  the  Discipline  of  1808 
is  not  the  exact  wording  of  the  act  as  passed  by  the 
General  Conference,  but  is  precisely  the  same  as  the 
report  of  the  committee  of  fourteen,  which  was  not 
adopted  by  the  Conference.  Whether  there  is  any 
important  legal  difference  in  the  form  "  The  next 
General  Conference  shall  not "  and  "  They  shall 
not,"  may  be  a  question.  The  form  "  They  shall 
not "  was  used,  no  doubt,  to  harmonize  with  the 
beginning  of  other  restrictions. 

The  fifth  restriction,  as  in  the  Discipline  of  1808, 
is  the  same  as  adopted  by  the  Conference  and  the 
same  as  reported  by  the  committee.  Bangs  says1 
that  the  form  adopted  used  the  words  "  or  by  a  select 
number,"  in  reference  to  the  trial  of  a  member, 
whereas  the  words  adopted  by  the  Conference  were 
"  or  by  a  committee,"  which  were  the  same  as  the 
report  of  the  committee,  and  as  found  in  the  Dis- 
cipline of  1808. 

The  sixth  restriction  in  the  form  as  given  in  the 
Discipline  of  1808,  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  profits 
of  the  publishing-house  and  the  income  from  the 
Chartered  Fund,  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  adopted 
by  the  Conference  and  as  reported  by  the  committee 
of  fourteen,  as  is  also  the  provision  for  amendments. 
Bangs,  however,  says  the  closing  words  were,  "  to 
alter  any  of  the  above  resolutions;"2  but  the  Dis- 


>  N.  Bangs,  D.  D.,  History  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Vol.  II, 
p.  233. 

'N.  Bangn,  D.  D.,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
N.  Y.,  1853,  3d  Ed.,  p.  233. 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL,  CONFERENCE.  371 

cipljoe  of  1808  uses  the  word  "restrictions."  The 
same  author,  in  introducing  the  action  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1808,  uses  this  language,  after  referring 
to  the  rejection  of  the  committee's  report :  "  Further 
conHultation,"  "  issued  finally  in  the  adoption,  almost 
unanimously,  of  the  following  regulations  and  limit- 
ations." l 

The  Rev.  Jesse  Lee  appears  to  have  been  very 
much  pleased  with  this  new  arrangement.  Comment- 
ing upon  it,  he  says: 

"  Our  Connection  having  spread  very  extensively,  and  the 
number  of  our  preachers  being  much  larger  than  they  were 
formerly,  it  was  thought  best  to  make  some  new  regulations 
about  our  General  Conferences  in  future,  and  the  foregoing 
regulations  were  agreed  to,  by  which  means  each  part  of  the 
Connection  would  have  a  proportionable  number  of  preachers 
in  the.  General  Conference.  The  Baltimore  and  Philadelphia 
Conferences  will  no  longer  include  more  than  half  the  mem- 
beis  of  the  General  Conference."  * 

The  Rev.  Nathan  Bangs,  D.  D.,  who  was  a 
minuter  at  that  time,  and  whose  history  was  issued 
in  1838,  thus  refers  to  this  change  in  the  General 
Conference : 

"  The  unanimity  with  which  these  restrictive  regulations 
weie  adopted  by  the  Conference  shows  the  deep  sense  which 
was  very  generally  felt  of  the  propriety  of  limiting  the  powers 
of  the  General  Conference,  so  as  to  secure  forever  the  essential 
doctrines  of  Christianity  from  all  encroachments,  as  well  as 
those  rules  of  moral  conduct,  so  succinctly  and  precisely  em- 
bodied in  the  General  Rules,  and  also  to  prevent  the  appro- 
pnations  of  the  available  funds  of  the  Church  from  being 


>N.  Bangs,  JX  D.,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 

IT,  1853,  8d  Ed.,  p.  431. 

'  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  History  of  the  Methodists.  1810,  pp.  349,  360. 


372     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

diverted  to  other  objects  than  those  for  which  they  had  been 
established.  Call  these  rules,  therefore,  restrictive  regulation*, 
or  a  constitution  of  the  Church — for  we  contend  not  about  names 
merely — they  have  ever  since  been  considered  as  sacredly 
binding  upon  all  succeeding  General  Conferences,  limiting 
them  in  all  their  legislative  acts,  and  prohibiting  them  from 
making  inroads  upon  the  doctrines,  general  rules,  and  govern- 
ment of  the  Church. 

"  Before  this,  each  General  Conference  felt  itself  at  full 
liberty,  not  being  prohibited  by.  any  standing  laws,  to  make 
whatever  alterations  it  might  see  fit,  or  to  introduce  any  new 
doctrine  or  item  of  discipline  which  either  fancy,  inclination, 
discretion,  or  indiscretion  might  dictate. 

"  Under  this  state  of  things,  knowing  the  rage  of  man  for 
novelty,  and  witnessing  the  destructive  changes  which  have 
frequently  laid  waste  churches,  by  removing  ancient  land- 
marks, and  so  modifying. doctrines  and  usages  as  to  suit  the 
temper  of  the  times,  or  to  gratify  either  a  corrupt  taste  or  a 
perverse  disposition,  many  had  felt  uneasy  apprehensions  for 
the  safety  and  unity  of  the  Church  and  the  stability  of  its 
doctrines,  moral  discipline,  and  the  frame  of  its  government ; 
and  none  were  more  solicitous  upon  this  subject  than  Bishop 
Asbury,  who  had  labored  so  long  with  an  assiduity  equaled 
by  few,  if  indeed  any,  and  suffered  so  much  for  the  propaga- 
tion and  establishing  of  these  important  points ;  he  therefore 
greatly  desired,  before  he  should  be  called  hence,  to  see  them 
fixed  upon  a  permanent  foundation.  The  lively  satisfaction, 
too,  with  which  this  act  of  the  Conference  was  received 
generally,  both  by  ministers  and  people,  abundantly  proves 
the  wisdom  which  presided  in  that  Council,  which  devised 
these  resolutions,  and  applauds  the  prudence  and  caution  with 
which  they  were  so  cordially  adopted.  And  although  the  prog- 
ress of  events  has  dictated  the  expediency  of  some  modifi- 
cation in  the  iron-like  bond  of  the  proviso,  yet  time  and  ex- 
perience have  borne  a  faithful  testimony  to  the  salutary  influ- 
ence of  the  restrictions  themselves  on  the  peace  and  unity  of 
the  Church." l 


>N.  Bangs,  D.  D.,  History  of  the  Methodist   Episcopal  Church. 
1853,  3d  Ed.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  233,  234. 


THE  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE.  373 

Establishing  the  delegated  General  Conference 
marks  a  new  epoch  in  the  development  of  Confer- 
ence government  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

From  personal  government  the  Church  has  passed 
to  government  by  the  Conference,  and  Conference 
government  has  passed  through  three  stages, — first, 
government  in  the  body  of  the  ministry  in  the  An- 
nual Conferences;  second,  government  in  the  Quad- 
rennial General  Conference;  and  now,  government  in 
the  delegated  Quadrennial  General  Conference. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  NATURE  AND  POWER  OF  THE  DELEGATED 
GENERAL  CONFERENCE. 

T3ISHOP  ASBURY'S  reference  to  the  General 
AJ  Conference  of  1808  is  very  meager.  Under  date 
of  May  6,  1808,  he  says  :  "  Our  General  Conference 
opened  in  peace.  On  Saturday  one  hundred  and 
twenty-nine  members  took  their  seats.  The  new 
Church  in  Eutaw  Street  was  opened  on  the  Sabbath 
day,  and  I  gave  a  discourse  on  the  occasion  from 
2  Cor.  iii,  12.  On  the  26th  the  Conference  rose. 
We  have  done  very  little  except  making  the  rule  for 
representation  hereafter;  one  member  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  for  every  six  members  of  the  Annual 
Conferences,  and  the  electing  dear  Brother  McKendree 
assistant  bishop;  the  burden  is  now.  borne  by  two 
pairs  of  shoulders  instead  of  one,  the  care  is  cast  upon 
two  hearts  and  heads."  l 

This  note  is  singular  in  three  respects :  First,  it 
states  that  the  General  Conference  did  "  very  little 
except  making  the  rule  for  representation,"  whereas 
it  did  an  exceedingly  important  work  in  determining 
the  powers  and  limitation  of  powers  in  the  delegated 
General  Conference ;  secondly,  he  states  that  the  ratio 
was  one  delegate  for  six  members  of  the  Annual  Con- 


» Bishop  Asbury's  Journal,  1821,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  248. 
374 


ITS  NATURE  AND  POWER.  3f5 

ference,  whereas  the  Conference  decided  on  one  for 
five,  but  gave  the  delegated  General  Conference  power 
to  fix  the  ratio  within  the  limits  of  one  in  five  to 
one  in  seven ;  and,  thirdly,  the  entry  is  somewhat  re- 
markable in  that  it  styles  Bishop  McKendree  an  "as- 
sistant bishop." 

We  leave  these  singular  statements,  and  pass  on  to 
notice  the  nature  and  power  of  this  delegated  Gen- 
eral Conference. 

To  ascertain  its  nature  and  its  powers,  we  must 
refer  to  the  instrument  drawn  up  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1808,  which  at  that  time  represented  the 
whole  Church,  and  was  the  supreme  governing  body 
of  the  Church. 

That  instrument,  which  has  already  been  quoted, 
appeared  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  1808,  immediately  after  the  Articles  of  Re- 
ligion, as  Question  Second  and  answer  to  said  ques- 
tion under  the  general  heading :  "  Section  III.  Of 
the  General  and  Yearly  Conferences." 

This  document  is  of  the  nature  of  a  charter  or 
constitution  created  and  granted  by  the  creative  and 
superior  authority.  The  General  Conference  of  1808, 
.representing  the  Church  and  exercising  supreme 
ecclesiastical  control,  created  the  delegated  General 
Conference,  and  in  the  written  instrument  to  which 
reference  has  been  made,  recited  that  which  it  deemed 
necessary  to  bring  into  being  and  perpetuate  the 
delegated  General  Conference,  and  also  indicated  in 
specific  terms  the  scope  of  its  power. 

To  ascertain,  therefore,  the  nature  and  power  of 


376    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

this  new  General  Conference,  we  must  consider  the 
document  drawn  up  by  the  General  Conference  of 
1808,  and  the  whole  matter  resolves  itself  into  a  ques- 
tion as  to  the  interpretation  of  that  instrument. 

An  examination  of  the  instrument  will  show  that, 
as  to  the  nature  of  the  new  General  Conference,  it 
was  to  be, — 

First,  a  ministerial  body.  No  one  could  be  a  mem- 
ber who  was  not  a  minister  in  full  membership  in 
an  Annual  Conference  at  the  time  of  holding  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  and  who  had  not  been  a  minister  at 
least  four  full  calendar  years  from,  the  time  he  had 
been  received  on  probation  in  an  Annual  Conference. 

Secondly,  it  was  to  be  a  delegated  body,  and  not, 
as  heretofore,  with  membership  dependent  merely  upon 
ministerial  standing;  but  persons  having  that  particular 
ministerial  status  were  to  be  selected  or  elected  "  either 
by  seniority  or  choice."  That  is  to  say,  the  Annual 
Conference  could  decide  whether  it  would  select  the 
oldest  preachers,  or  whether  it  would  elect  by  vote 
those  who  should  be  its  representatives.  Further,  the 
number  of  delegates  from  any  Annual  Conference 
was  to  be  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  members 
in  the  said  Annual  Conference. 

The  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  1808  changed 
the  status  of  the  bishops  in  subsequent  General  Con- 
ferences. None  were  to  be  members  of  the  delegated 
General  Conference,  but  delegates  elected  by  Annual 
Conferences.  As  the  bishops  were  not  so  elected, 
tluy  had  not  the  rights  of  members  on  the  floor,  but 
were,  under  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  to 


ITS  NATURE  AND  POWER.  377 

act  as  presidents,  with  power  to  rule  on  points  of 
parliamentary  law,  but  not  to  decide  points  of  eccle- 
siastical law;  for  the  General  Conference  was  to  be 
the  interpreter  as  well  as  the  maker  of  Church  law. 
This  relation  of  the  general  superintendents  to  the 
General  Conference  has  been  respected  by  bishops, 
and  jealously  guarded  by  General  Conferences,  as  the 
records  show.1 

Thirdly,  it  was  to  be  a  law-making  body.  It  was 
to  have  power  "  to  make  rules  and  regulations "  for 
the  Church.  This  language  covers  the  enactment  of 
laws  and  directions  for  carrying  out  these  laws,  and 
also  of  any  direction  which  might  be  deemed  necessary 
in  the  conduct  of  the  Church. 

In  order  that  there  might  be  no  mistake  as  to  the 
scope  of  this  power  granted  to  the  delegated  General 
Conference,  the  instrument  specifically  states  that 
"  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to 
make  rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church." 

So  that  the  whole  law-making  power  was  now 
committed  to  the  General  Conference,  and  would  no 
longer  be  in  the  Annual  Conferences  or  in  the  body  of 
the  ministry,  either  in  the  separate  yearly  Confer- 
ences or  in  the  general  ministry  assembled  at  one  time 
and  in  one  place.  If  the  document  said  no  more,  it 
would  be  plain  that  the  delegated  General  Conference 
could  do  as  it  pleased  in  the  matter  of  making  "  rules 
and  regulations;"  but  the  new  General  Conference 
was  not  so  empowered.  The  body  that  created  it 


i  For  example,  see  General  Conference  Journal  of  1884,  p.  263. 
25 


378    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

and  gave  it  the  written  instrument,  as  its  authority 
and  its  guide,  inserted  in  the  document  a  check 
or  a  series  of  checks  upon  this  power  "  to  make 
rules  and  regulations"  by  adding  the  words,  "under 
the  following  limitations  and  restrictions." 

Then  follow  six  paragraphs,  which  afterward 
were  commonly  knows  as  "  The  Six  Restrictive 
Rules."  These  restrictions  touch  questions  of  doc- 
trine, the  ratio  of  representation,  episcopacy,  the  "  Gen- 
eral Rules,"  the  rights  of  ministers  and  members  to 
legal  protection  in  their  status  as  ministers  or  mem- 
bers, and  the  use  of  the  income  from  the  publishing 
interests  and  the  "Chartered  Fund;"  and  then  is 
added  a  provision  for  amendment. 

As  to  the  matter  of  law-making,  it  is  therefore 
perfectly  plain  that  the  new  delegated  General  Con- 
ference had  full  power  to  make  all  "rules  and  regu- 
lations" that  it  thought  might  be  requisite  for  the 
proper  conduct  of  the  Church,  excepting  where  checked 
by  one  or  more  of  the  specified  limitations.  In  other 
words,  the  General  Conference  had  full  power  to 
make  any  law  or  regulation  which  was  not  prohib- 
ited by  one  or  more  of  the  "  Restrictive  Rules." 

So  Bishop  Harris,  in  his  little  book  on  "The 
Constitutional  Powers  of  the  General  Conference," 
says : 

"It  will  be  seen  that  the  General  Conference  has,  by  ex- 
press constitutional  grant,  power  to  make  rules  and  regulations 
for  the  Church,  subject,  however,  to  a  code  or  body  of  articles, 
six  in  number,  which  are  called  'Restrictive  Rules,  or  Articles. ' 
In  other  words,  the  General  Conference  has  legislative  powers 


ITS  NATURE  AND  POWER.  379 

conferred  on  it  by  a  constitution  restricting  and  limiting  its 
powers1"1 

Again  the  same  author  observes: 

"The  constitution  of  the  Church  differs  essentially,  in  the 
powers  it  delegates,  from  our  State  and  Federal  constitutijns. 
In  these  latter  all  powers  not  expressly  granted  to  the  Gov- 
ernment are  reserved  to  the  people,  or  to  the  States,  while  in 
the  former  all  powers  not  expressly  reserved  or  excepted  are 
delegated  to  the  General  Conference.  It  has  been  so  held  by 
the  highest  judicial  tribunal  of  the  Church,*  as  well  as  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  Nation.*  The  constitution  gives  to  the 
General  Conference  futt  powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations 
under  denned  limitations — power  to  make  all  rules  and  regu- 
lations pertinent  to  Church  government,  under  specified  re- 
strictions, and  under  no  other  restrictions.  There  is  not  here 
a  delegation  of  enumerated  powers  accompanied  by  a  general 
reservation  as  in  the  case  of  the  Federal  Government,  but  a 
delegation  of  general  and  sweeping  powers  under  enumerated 
and  well  defined  restrictions.  The  whole  power  to  rule  and 
regulate  the  Church  is  given  to  the  General  Conference  by  the 
plain  terms  of  the  grant,  and  is  to  be  held  as  restricted  only  in 
those  particulars  in  which  it  was  designed  not  to  delegate  the 
power.  In  what  particulars  it  was  designed  not  to  delegate 
the  power  must  be  determined  by  the  terms  of  the  consti- 
tution. No  limitations  can  be  implied  other  than  those  as- 
signed in  the  instrument  itself."4 

The  same  writer  further  remarks,  that 

"The  General  Conference  was  at  first  composed  of  all  the 
preachers  in  good  standing  in  the  yearly  Conferences.  After- 
ward membership  was  restricted  to  ministers  who  had  been 


i  Rev.  Wm.  L.  Harris,  D.  D.,  The  Constitutional  Powers  of  the  General 
Conference,  with  a  Special  Application  to  tiie  Subject  of  Slave- 
holding,  Cincinnati,  18«0,  p.  20. 

'Reply  to  the  Protest,  Journal  of  General  Conference  of  1844, 
pp.  203,  204. 

•  Howard's  Reports  United  States  Supreme  Court,  Vol.  XVI,  p.  308. 

« Kev.  Win.  L.  Harris,  D.  D.,  The  Constitutional  Powers  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  1860,  pp.  21-23. 


380   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

connected  with  the  Annual  Conferences  four  full  calendar 
years.  The  General  Conference  was  thus  constituted  up  to 
and  including  the  one  held  in  Baltimore  in  1808.  No  rule  or 
regulation  passed  by  this  body  was  unconstitutional,  for  the 
very  good  reason  that  there  was  no  constitution,  in  the  sense  of 
that  term  as  now  understood  and  used  by  our  Church  author- 
ities. Its  powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  Church 
were  undefined  and  unlimited.  It  had  'full  powers'  in  all 
matters  pertinent  to  Church  government,  and  was  amenable 
for  its  action  to  no  earthly  tribunal. 

"The  General  Conference  of  1808  provided,  that  thereafter 
this  supreme  council  of  the  Church  should  be  composed  of 
delegates  chosen  by  the  Annual  Conferences  severally,  accord 
ing  to  a  given  ratio  of  representation.  The  first  delegated  Gen- 
eral Conference  met  in  New  York,  in  1812.  It  was  the  legiti- 
mate successor  of  the  one  of  1808,  and  it  succeeded  to  all  the 
powers  of  its  predecessors,  except  in  so  far  as  those  powers 
were  pared  down  by  the  limiting  terms  of  the  constitution. 

"  To  ascertain,  therefore,  the  powers  of  the  General  Con- 
ference in  a  given  case,  no  search  need  be  made  for  a  specific 
warrant  for  the  particular  rule  which  it  is  proposed  to  enact. 
It  is  enough  that  the  constitution  does  not  forbid  the  rule ; 
for  the  terms  of  the  grant  devolving  legislative  power  upon 
the  General  Conference  are  sufficiently  comprehensive  to  au- 
thorize the  passage  of  any  rule  not  clearly  excepted  by  the 
enumerated  restrictions." l 

The  phrase  "  rules  and  regulations  "  hardly  needs 
any  explanation.  It  is  so  comprehensive  that  it 
covers  everything  that  a  body  possessing  supreme  leg- 
islative, judicial,  and  executive  powers  can  do.  The 
words  "  rule"  and  "  rules"  were  used  in  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  in  1808  and  in  the  years  pre- 
ceding, as  meaning  "law"  and  "laws,"  and  "regula- 
tions" covered  all  directions  which  might  be  made  to 
carry  forward  the  work  of  the  Church ;  and  so,  under 

» Rev.  Wm.  L.  Harris,  D.  D.,  The  Constitutional  Powers  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  1860,  pp.  28-25. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  POWER.  381 

the  phrase  "rules  and  regulations,"  every  minister, 
every  member,  every  officer,  every  society,  and  every 
Conference  in  the  Church  was  brought  under  the  di- 
rect or  indirect  control  of  the  General  Conference 
according  to  its  pleasure,  except  as  limited  by  the  Re- 
strictive Rules. 

The  same  words  are  used  in  Article  IV  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  where,  referring  to 
the  power  of  Congress  over  the  Territories,  it  says : 
"The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of  and 
make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the 
Territory,"  etc.;  and  Chief  Justice  Story,  comment- 
ing on  this  clause  of  the  Constitution,  says  :  "  The 
power  of  Congress  over  the  public  territory  is  clearly 
exclusive  and  universal,  and  their  legislation  is  subject 
to  no  control."1 

In  the  same  way  the  General  Conference,  under 
the  unlimited  grant  of  power,  would  have  exclusive 
power  and  be  subject  to  no  control;  but  the  "full 
powers"  are  limited  by  the  restrictions;  yet,  as  long 
as  it  does  not  trespass  beyond  the  limits  placed  by  the 
restrictions,  it  has  "full  powers  to  make  rules  and 
regulations"  according  to  its  wisdom  or  pleasure. 
In  other  words,  the  power  of  the  General  Conference 
was  unlimited  within  certain  limits. 

Fourthly,  the  General  Conference  was  to  be,  in  a 
secondary  and  limited  sense,  a  constitution-making 
body.  Of  itself  it  could  not  make  or  originate  any 
change  in  the  constitution.  The  body  of  ministers, 
as  in  the  General  Conference  of  1808  and  in  the  An- 

'  Story  on  the  Constitution,  Vol.  II,  p.  188. 


382   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

nual  Conferences,  reserved  this  initiative  in  the  mat- 
ter of  constitution-making. 

Thus,  the  constitution  granted,  the  first  delegated 
General  Conference  closes  with  the  following  pro- 
vision for  amendment:  "Provided,  nevertheless,  that 
upon  the  joint  recommendation  of  all  the  Annual 
Conferences,  then  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the 
General  Conference  succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter 
any  of  the  above  restrictions."1 

According  to  this,  any  or  all  of  the  restrictions 
might  be  amended  or  stricken  out,  and  then  the 
General  Conference  would  be  free  to  act  as  it  might 
desire,  without  any  limitation.  But  the  General 
Conference  alone  could  not  free  itself  from  the  limi- 
tations; and,  as  has  been  observed,  could  not  even 
take  the  first  step  toward  the  change. 

The  initiative  had  to  be  taken  by  the  body  of  the 
ministry  prior  to  the  assembling  of  a  General  Con- 
ference; and  that  not  by  the  body  of  the  ministry 
collected  in  the  same  place  and  at  the  same  time, 
but  meeting  in  their  several  Annual  Conferences,  and 
voting  therein. 

The  proposed  change  must  first  pass  around  the 
several  Annual  Conferences,  where  it  must  receive, 
not  a  majority  vote  of  all  the  members  of  all  the 
Annual  Conferences  or  of  all  those  present  and 
voting,  but  the  recommendation  of  all  the  Annual 
Conferences,  and  that  by  a  majority  vote  in  each 
Annual  Conference.  Thus  it  might  happen  that 
though  a  majority  of  the  aggregate  membership  of 

i  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  1808,  p.  16. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  POWER.  383 

the  Annual  Conferences  might  favor  the  change,  yet 
because  there  was  not  a  majority  in  a  single  small 
Conference,  the  change  could  not  be  made. 

If,  however,  there  was  a  majority  vote  in  favor 
in  each  Annual  Conference,  then  the  recommenda- 
tion for  some  given  change  could  be  considered  and 
acted  upon  by  the  next  succeeding  General  Confer- 
ence. This  gave  the  General  Conference  supple- 
mentary and  concurrent  power  in  amending  the 
constitution ;  but  it  reserved  to  the  body  of  the  min- 
istry in  the  several  Annual  Conferences  the  funda- 
mental right  of  constitution-mending,  as  it  had  the 
original  right  of  constitution-making. 

When  the  ministry  in  the  Annual  Conferences 
had,  according  to  the  provision  for  amendment,  ex- 
pressed their  desire  for  any  specified  change,  then  the 
next  succeeding  General  Conference  must  agree  to 
the  change  by  a  two-thirds  vote  before  the  change 
could  be  made  in  the  constitution.  If  the  amend- 
ment received  less  than  a  two-thirds  vote,  the  prop- 
osition fell  just  as  certainly  as  though  the  Annual 
Conferences  themselves  had  refused  to  recommend. 

Thus  the  constitution-mending  and  constitution- 
making  power  was  divided  between  the  ministry  in 
the  Annual  Conferences  and  their  delegates  in  Gen- 
eral Conference  assembled,  but  with  the  originating 
power  reserved  to  the  Annual  Conferences. 

There  can,  therefore,  be  no  doubt  as  to  the 
method  to  be  used  in  removing  or  amending  any  of 
the  Six  Restrictive  Rules;  but  a  question  now  arises 
as  to  whether  that  method  refers  only  to  the  part  of 


384    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

the  instrument  technically  known  as  "the  Six  Re- 
strictive Rules,"  or  whether  this  process  of  amend- 
ment is  necessary  in  making  changes  in  any  other 
part  of  the  document.  In  other  words,  could  the 
delegated  General  Conference,  acting  under  the  con- 
stitution of  1808,  change  any  other  part  of  the  in- 
strument by  its  own  act,  without  any  reference  to  a 
"joint  recommendation  of  all  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences ?" 

There  is  one  part  in  the  body  of  the  document 
which  the  General  Conference  appears  to  have  the 
right  to  change  without  waiting  for  a  "joint  recom- 
mendation of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,"  and  that 
is  the  item  in  the  first  paragraph,  where  it  says  "the 
General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  one  mem- 
ber for  every  five  members  of  each  Annual  Confer- 
ence;" for  the  Second  Restrictive  Rule  established  a 
sliding  scale  of  representation.  It  reads:  "They 
shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  representative  for 
every  five  members  of  the  Annual  Conference,  nor 
allow  of  a  less  number  than  one  for  every  seven."1 

According  to  this  the  delegated  General  Confer- 
ence of  1812  could  have  changed  the  ratio  of  repre- 
sentation so  that  there  might  have  been  one  delegate  for 
six  or  one  for  seven  members,  and  might  have  changed 
the  language  in  the  first  paragraph  so  as  to  harmo- 
nize, by  striking  out  five  and  inserting  six  or  seven, 
without  awaiting  a  new  recommendation  from  the 
Annual  Conferences;  but  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
delegated  General  Conference  had  already  been  em- 

i  Discipline  of  1808. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  POWER.  385 

powered  to  make  these  changes  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1808,  so  that  such  change  would  not  be  the 
act  of  the  General  Conference  alone,  for  there  had  been 
the  previous  consent  of  the  body  of  the  ministry. 

Still  the  question  arises,  Can  the  General  Confer- 
ence, on  its  own  motion,  make  any  other  change  in 
the  body  of  the  constitution  ?  In  answer  to  this  it 
must  be  said  that  the  instrument  itself  does  not 
specify  any  other  change  the  General  Conference  may 
make  in  the  body  of  the  constitution,  and  the  natural 
inference  therefore  would  be  that  the  General  Con- 
ference would  not  have  the  power  unless  the  instru- 
ment gave  it  such  power  in  specific  terms. 

Something  may  depend  upon  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  words  "any  of  the  above  restric- 
tions," in  the  provision  for  amendment,  as  to 
whether  the  language  covers  only  the  Six  Restrict- 
ive Rules,  so-called,  or  whether  it  covers  the  whole 
document. 

If  the  provision  for  amendment  covers  only  the 
above  Restrictive  Rules,  then  it  might  be  held  that 
there  is  no  provision  for  the  amendment  of  the  body 
of  the  instrument,  and,  if  that  be  the  case,  then  it 
follows  that  the  body  of  the  ministers  in  the  General 
Conference  of  1808  did  not  transfer  to  the  delegated 
General  Conference  any  power  whatever  to  change 
the  body  of  the  instrument,  excepting  in  the  one 
minor  part  before  mentioned ;  and  it  may  be  held 
that,  as  the  creating  body  did  not  give  the  created 
body  such  power,  the  delegated  General  Conference 
did  not  possess  such  power;  for  it  had  only  such 


386  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

power  as  was  given  it  by  the  General  Conference 
of  1808. 

If,  however,  we  interpret  the  provision  for  amend- 
ment as  applying  to  the  whole  instrument,  then  it 
must  again  follow  that  the  General  Conference  of 
itself  can  not  change  the  body  of  the  Constitution 
unless  there  was  first  "the  joint  recommendation  of 
all  the  Annual  Conferences." 

An  analysis  of  the  instrument  of  1808  shows  us 
that  the  whole  of  it  is  of  the  nature  of  a  charter  or 
constitution.  It  was  all  given  by  the  then  supreme 
power,  and  the  whole  document  was  necessary  to 
bring  into  being  and  to  perpetuate  the  delegated  Gen- 
eral Conference.  The  entire  instrument,  including 
the  statements  as  to  the  composition  of  the  body,  the 
time  and  place  of  meeting,  the  presidency,  the  quorum, 
and  the  calling  of  extra  sessions,  are  as  much  parts  of 
the  charter  or  constitution  as  the  part  which  refers  to 
the  power  of  the  General  Conference  to  make  rules 
and  regulations  or  the  restrictions  upon  these  powers. 
The  delegated  General  Conference  did  not  make  the 
body  of  the  instrument  any  more  than  it  made  the  Re- 
strictive Rules;  and  it  must  tollow  that  it  has,  to  say 
the  least,  no  more  power  over  the  body  of  the  consti- 
tution than  it  has  over  the  Restrictive  Rules,  unless  the 
instrument  clearly  gives  it  such  power;  and  that  it 
does  not  confer  such  power  is  plain. 

The  delegated  General  Conference  did  not  make 
the  instrument,  but  the  instrument  made  it,  and,  on 
general  principles,  the  created  can  not  make  or  un- 
make the  creator. 


ITS  NATURE  AND  POWER.  387 

If  the  whole  instrument  be  of  the  nature  of  a 
charter  or  constitution,  it  follows  that  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  General  Conference  can  only  be  changed 
by  the  power  that  made  the  constitution,  or  in  the 
way  specified  by  that  power. 

It  must,  therefore,  appear  that  the  whole  consti- 
tution of  1808  was  as  thoroughly  protected  against 
change  by  the  General  Conference  alone  as  were  the 
Restrictive  Rules;  and  certainly,  if  a  subordinate  part 
of  the  constitution  was  guarded  by  the  provision  for 
amendment,  the  more  important  body  of  the  instru- 
ment was  at  least  as  strongly  defended. 

If  the  General  Conference  could  amend  the  body 
of  the  constitution  by  striking  out  or  inserting,  or 
otherwise  without  action  on  the  part  of  the  Annual 
Conferences,  it  might  destroy  its  presidency  and  its 
quorum.  It  might  decide  to  meet  once  in  four  hun- 
dred years  instead  of  "  once  in  four  years  perpetually," 
and  so  practically  destroy  itself.  These  matters  are 
vital,  and  are  under  the  control  of  the  constitution- 
making  and  constitution-mending  power,  and  by  the 
instrument  of  1808  that  was  divided  between  the 
Annual  Conferences  and  their  delegates  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  body  of  the 
constitution  can  not  be  amended  by  the  General 
Conference  alone,  and  that,  under  the  provision  of 
1808,  there  was  no  easier  way  of  amending  the  body 
of  the  instrument  than  the  process  for  amending  a 
Restrictive  Rule ;  namely,  that  it  was  necessary,  first, 
to  have  "the  joint  recommendation  of  all  the  Annual 


388  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Conferences,"  and  then  the  concurrence  of  "  a  ma- 
jority of  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference  suc- 
ceeding." 

Thus  we  have  seen  that  the  delegated  General 
Conference,  provided  for  by  the  act  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1808,  was  to  be  a  ministerial  body 
composed  of  a  proportionate  number  of  ministerial 
delegates  from  the  Annual  Conference,  that  it  was  to 
be  the  law-making  body  of  the  Church,  that  it  was  to 
have  a  supplementary  or  concurrent  share  in  the 
constitution-making  power,  and  that  it  was  to  exist 
and  act  under  a  constitution  of  which  no  part  could 
be  changed  except  by  compliance  with  the. process 
laid  down  'by  the  power  that  created  the  constitution, 
and  that  this  process  required  the  recommendation  of 
all  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  then  the  concurrence 
of  the  General  Conference. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

CHANGES  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION  OP  THE  GENERAL 
CONFERENCE  FROM  1812  TO  1856. 


first  delegated  General  Conference  met  in 
A  1812,  in  pursuance  of  the  action  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1808.  The  Journal  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1812  opens  with  the  statement  that  "  the  del- 
egated General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  assembled  in 
the  city  of  New  York,  agreeably  to  a  resolution  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1808.  Bishop  Asbury 
opened  -the  Conference.  Wm.  M.  Kennedy  was  ap- 
pointed secretary  pro  tern.  The  forenoon  was  occu- 
pied in  calling  for  and  reading  the  certificates  of  the 
delegates  from  the  several  Annual  Conferences."1 

On  the  afternoon  of  the  first  day  the  right  of  an 
Annual  Conference  to  elect  reserve  delegates  was 
considered.  "A  case  was  brought  forward  respecting 
some  of  the  delegates  from  New  England.  It  seems 
they  elected  three  extra  members,  who  were  to  succeed 
and  take  place  in  case  of  the  failure  of  any  of  the 
first  chosen  delegates.  The  Conference  took  into 
consideration  the  propriety  of  the  principle,  and, 
after  some  debate,  voted  that  this  business  should  be 
laid  over  till  to-morrow."  2 


i  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  p.  97.          « Id.,  p.  98. 

389 


390    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

The  Journal  for  the  next  day  informs  us  that "  the 
business  concerning  the  delegates  from  the  New 
England  Conference  was  resumed,  and,  after  some 
conversation,  a  motion  was  made :  '  Are  our  brethren 
from  the  New  England  Conference,  Joel  Winch 
and  Daniel  Webb,  entitled  to  their  seats  in  this 
Conference?5  Voted  in  favor  of  the  motion,  56; 
against,  22.  They  accordingly  took  their  seats  in  the 
places  of  John  Brodhead  and  Elijah  R.  Sabin  ;" '  and 
so  the  principle  of  alternate  delegates  was  established. 

On  May  5th  the  General  Conference  considered  the 
question  of  "  rules  and  orders  to  govern  the  Confer- 
ence," and  especially  the  right  of  the  body  to  resolve 
itself  into  "  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  Conference," 
and  on  the  question,  "  Shall  the  Conference  have  power 
to  resolve  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole?" 
the  Conference  decided,  "  by  a  large  majority,"  that 
it  had  such  power.2 

The  next  day,  on  motion  of  S.  G.  Roszel,  Bishop 
McKendree's  address  was  considered  in  Committee 
of  the  Whole  Conference,  and  "  Freeborn  Garrettson 
was  called  to  the  chair."3 

On  the  afternoon  of  May  8th,  "  Jesse  Lee  moved 
that  the  members  of  the  next  General  Conference 
come  by  seniority,  and  that  the  supernumerary  and 
superannuated  preachers  shall  not  be  included  among 
the  senior  preachers;  also  that  one  for  every  six 
members  shall  come  to  the  next  General  Conference, 
and,  in  case  there  are  two  or  more  preachers  of  equal 


>  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  pp.  98, 99. 
•Id.,  p.  100.       •Id.,  p.  10L 


CHANGES  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION.          391 

standing,  then  the  first  named  shall  have  the  prefer- 
ence. And  in  case  any  one  of  the  above  preachers 
shall  fail,  by  sickness  or  otherwise,  to  attend  the 
General  Conference,  then  the  next  senior  preacher 
shall  come  in  his  place.  Postponed  till  Wednesday 
next." ' 

The  final  action  on  this  proposition  is  as  follows : 
"  Then  the  question  was  taken  on  the  first  para- 
graph :  '  I  move  that  the  members  of  the  next  Gen- 
eral Conference  come  by  seniority.'  Lost.  The  sec- 
ond paragraph :  '  That  one  for  every  six  members 
shall  come  to  the  next  General  Conference.'  Lost." 2 
So  the  first  attempt  to  amend  the  plan  of  1808  failed. 

Lee's  motion,  however,  was  not  an  amendment  to 
the  constitution.  The  first  part  was  rather  in  the 
line  of  interpretation,  or  an  expression  of  judgment. 
The  change  of  ratio  to  one  in  six  was  permitted  by  the 
constitution.  The  latter  part  of  the  resolution  was 
an  attempt  to  provide  a  class  of  reserve  delegates. 

As  already  noted,  there  was  one  change  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  was  permitted  to  make ;  namely,  the 
fixing  the  ratio  of  representation  at  or  between  the 
limits  of  one  for  five  to  one  for  seven. 

The  first  recorded  change  in  the  chapter  on  the 
General  Conference  was  made  in  1816,  when  the 
General  Conference  changed  the  ratio  to  one  in 
seven,  by  adopting  the  following: 

"  Resolved,  That  the  next  General  Conference  shall  be 
composed  of  one  member  for  every  seven,  instead  of  one  for 
every  six  of  each  Annual  Conference."  * 

» Gen.  Con.  Journals,  Vol.  I,  p.  105.       •  JeL,  p.  111.       •  Id.,  p.  187. 


392    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

This  appears  to  imply  that  in  1816  the  ratio  of 
representation  was  one  in  six,  though  we  fail  to  find 
a  record  of  such  a  change. 

As  we  have  seen,  this  change  to  one  for  every 
seven  members  was  within  the  powers  granted  to  the 
delegated  General  Conference  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1808,  which  had  adopted  a  sliding  scale  of  one 
in  five  to  one  in  seven.  In  1828  a  slight  change 
was  made  in  the  Sixth  Restrictive  Rule  by  substitut- 
ing the  word  "  nor  "  for  the  word  "  or,"  so  as  to  make 
it  read  "  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the 
Book  Concern  nor  of  the  Charter  Fund."  . 

This  may  have  been  done  to  prevent  the  possi- 
bility of  people  supposing  that  the  Book  Concern  and 
Charter  Fund  were  two  titles  for  the  same  thing. 

There  is  no  evidence,  however,  in  the  Journal  of 
the  General  Conference  that  this  change  was  author- 
ized or  formally,  agreed  to  by  that  body.  Certainly 
it  was  not  submitted  to  the  Annual  Conferences.  It 
was  probably  purely  a  matter  of  editing;  but  the 
question  may  be  raised  as  to  whether  an  editor,  or 
even  the  General  Conference,  had  any  right  to  change 
any  considerable  part  or  even  a  single  expression  in 
the  constitution  prepared  by  the  General  Conference 
of  1808. 

To  this  there  is  only  one  answer;  namely,  that 
the  General  Conference,  much  less  an  editor,  had 
no  right  to  change  a  word  or  phrase  except  as  the 
constitution  provided. 

After  the  General  Conference  of  1824,  an  effort  was 
made  to  reduce  the  ratio  of  representation ;  but  it  failed. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION.          393 

Bangs  says :  "  A  recommendation  had  been  sent 
the  rounds  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  requesting 
them  to  empower  the  General  Conference  of  1828  to 
diminish  the  number  of  delegates.  This  recommen- 
dation passed  all  the  Annual  Conferences  except  the 
Philadelphia,  and  as  it  required  all  the  Conferences 
to  concur  before  the  alteration  could  be  made  by  the 
General  Conference,  the  measure  was  defeated  by  the 
non-concurrence  of  this  single  Annual  Conference."1 
The  pressure,  however,  led  to  subsequent  action. 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1828,  Wilbur  Fisk, 
on  the  15th  of  May,  offered  the  following  reso- 
lutions, viz.: 

"Resolved,  etc.,  1.  That  this  General  Conference  respect- 
fully suggest  to  the  several  Annual  Conferences  the  propriety 
of  recommending  to  the  next  General  Conference  so  to  alter 
and  amend  the  rules  of  our  Discipline,  by  which  the  General 
Conference  is  restricted  and  limited  in  its  legislative  powers, 
commonly  called  the  Restrictive  Rules,  number  six,  as  to  read 
thus:  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint  recommen- 
dation of  three-fourths  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  then  a 
majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference  succeeding 
shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  the  above  restrictions ;  or,  when- 
ever such  alterations  shall  have  been  first  recommended  by 
two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference,  then,  so  soon  as  three- 
'ourths  of  said  Annual  Conferences  shall  have  concurred  with 
such  recommendations,  such  alteration  or  alterations  shall 
take  effect. 

"  Resolved,  etc.,  2.  That  it  is  hereby  made  the  duty  of  the 
several  bishops  in  their  tours  to  the  different  Annual  Confer- 
ences, to  carry  around  and  lay  before  any  such  Annual  Con- 
ference which  they  may  visit  respectively  any  address  or  reso- 
lution, or  other  papers  of  a  decent  character,  which  thia 


i  Nathan  Hangs,  D.  D.,  History  of  the  Metliocllsl  Episcopal  Church, 
1857,  Vol.  IV,  p.  103. 

26 


394    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

General  Conference  or  any  Annual  Conference  may  request 
them  so  to  carry  aronnd  to  obtain  the  opinion  or  decision  of 
said  Annual  Conferences  thereon.  Signed,  Wilbur  Fisk, 
Joseph  A.  Merrill." 

"  These  resolutions  were,  on  motion,  laid  on  the 
table."  l 

On  the  21st  of  May  (1828),  and  on  motion  of 
William  Winans,  Wilbur  Fisk's  resolution  was 
"called  up."3 

"L.  McCombs  moved  to  amend  the  resolution  by  strik- 
ing out  the  word  '  joint,'  and  insert  the  word  '  concurrent,' 
and  the  motion  was  lost."  * 

"  A  division  of  the  motion  was  called  for.  The  first  part 
of  the  resolution  was  adopted,  to  wit:  'That  this  General 
Conference  respectfully  suggest  to  the  several  Annual  Confer- 
ences the  propriety  of  recommending  to  the  next  General 
Conference  so  to  alter  and  amend  the  rules  of  our  Discipline, 
by  which  the  General  Conference  is  restricted  and  limited  in 
its  powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church,  com- 
monly called  the  Restrictive  Rules,  so  as  to  make  the  proviso 
at  the  close  of  said  Restrictive  Rules,  No.  6,  read  thus :  Provided, 
nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint  recommendations  of  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  then  a  majority  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  General  Conference  succeeding  shall  suffice  to 
alter  any  of  the  above  restrictions  except  the  first  '  Article.'  " 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  was  really  a  substitute 
for  the  first  part  of  Dr.  Fisk's  first  resolution.  Fisk 
used  the  words,  "its  legislative  powers;"  this  substi- 
tutes the  words,  "  its  powers  to  make  rules  and  regu- 
lations for  our  Church," — an  evident  attempt  to  re- 
peat and  preserve  the  language  of  the  paragraph  on 
the  powers  of  the  General  Conference,  which  gives  it 
more  than  mere  "  legislative  powers." 

i  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  pp.  331-332. 
•  Id.,  p.  848.          *lbid. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION.  395 

There  are  other  slight  differences  of  phraseol- 
ogy, but  the  most  important  change  is  the  addition 
of  the  words,  "except  the  first 'Article,'"  which  no 
doubt  means  the  First  Restrictive  Rule,  limiting  the 
power  as  to  change  of  doctrine. 

"The  motion  by  which  this  part  of  the  resolution 
was  adopted,  was,  on  motion  of  R.  Bigelow  recon- 
sidered. It  was  then  resolved,  on  motion,  that  the 
resolution  be  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  three 
members."  l 

On  May  22,  1828,— "W.  Fisk,  from  the  commit- 
tee to  which  had  been  referred  the  subject  of  recom- 
mending to  the  Annual  Conferences  some  alterations 
in  the  Restrictive  Rules,  reported."2 

"A  division  of  the  above  report  was  called  for, 
and  the  question  being  taken  on  the  first  part,  it  was 
carried. 

"The  vote  was  taken  on  the  second  and  last  part; 
carried,  also."  3 

The  following  is  the  report  as  adopted:  "The 
committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  em- 
braced in  a  resolution  suggesting  the  propriety  of 
providing  for  the  alteration  of  one  of  the  rules  com- 
monly called  the  Restrictive  Rules,  beg  leave  to  re- 
port the  following  resolution: 

"  Resolved,  That  this  General  Conference  respectfully  sug- 
gest to  the  several  Annual  Conferences  the  propriety  of  recom- 
mending to  the  next  General  Conference  so  to  alter  and  amend 
the  rules  of  our  Discipline,  by  which  the  General  Conference 
is  restricted  in  its  powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for 

» General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  p.  846. 
•Jd.,  p.  353. 


396    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

the  Church,  commonly  called  the  Restrictive  Rules,  as  to  make 
the  proviso  at  the  close  of  said  Restrictive  Rules,  No.  6,  read 
thus: 

"Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  concurrent  recom- 
mendation of  three-fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  who  shall  be  present  and  vote  on  such  rec- 
ommendation, then  a  majority  of  two- thirds  of  the  General  Con- 
ference succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  such  regula- 
tions, excepting  the  First  Article. 

"  And,  also,  whenever  such  alteration  or  alterations  shall 
have  first  been  recommended  by  two-thirds  of  the  General 
Conference,  so  soon  as  three-fourths  of  the  members  of  the 
Annual  Conferences  shall  have  concurred,  as  aforesaid,  with 
such  recommendation,  such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  take 
effect. 

44  All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

"W.  FISK,  Chairman."1 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  word  "  limited,"  which 
appears  in  the  resolution  adopted  (May  21st)  and  com- 
mitted, and  also  in  Dr.  Fisk's  paper,  was  stricken 
out  from  the  phrase,  "  restricted  and  limited  " — prob- 
ably on  the  ground  that  it  was  tautological  and  un- 
necessary. 

The  phrase  "so  as,"  which  appears  in  the  resolu- 
tion which  had  been  adopted,  and  then  reconsidered 
and  referred,  was  made  to  read  "  as,"  which  was  the 
form  in  Dr.  Fisk's  resolution. 

The  phrase,  "the  above  restrictions,"  which  ap- 
peared in  Dr.  Fisk's  paper  and  the  resolution  which 
had  been  reconsidered,  was  stricken  out,  and  the 
words,  "  such  regulations,"  were  inserted. 

"Excepting"  was  substituted  for  "except." 

But  the  most  important  change  was  the  insertion 


i  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  pp.  853,  354. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION.  397 

of  the  words,  "the  members  of."  The  wording  had 
been,  "three-fourths  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences." 
This  insertion  made  it  read,  "  three-fourths  of  all  the 
members  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences."  This 
was  proposing  a  new  principle;  for  the  proviso  in 
the  Discipline  read,  and  had  read  since  1808,  "upon 
the  joint  recommendation  of  all  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences." 

Under  the  original  proviso  it  required  a  majority 
vote  in  each  and  all  the  several  Annual  Conferences; 
but  this  proposition  was  to  put  the  power  in  the  hands 
of  the  aggregate  membership  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences. 

In  order  that  it  might  not  be  supposed  to  require 
three-fourths  of  all  the  members,  whether  present  or 
not,  or  who  did  or  did  not  vote,  there  were  added  the 
words,  "  who  shall  be  present  and  vote  on  such  rec- 
ommendation." 

Then  the  second  part  was  made  to  begin  with  the 
words,  "  and  also,"  instead  of  "  or,"  as  Dr.  Fisk  had 
originally  proposed. 

"Have  been  first"  was  changed  to  "have  first 
been."  The  aggregate  vote  of  the  ministers  was  also 
incorporated  by  inserting  the  words,  "three-fourths 
of  the  members  of  the  Annual  Conferences  shall  have 
concurred,  as  aforesaid."  The  singular,  "recommen- 
dation," was  also  substituted  for  "  recommendations," 
as  in  Dr.  Fisk's  original  resolution. 

This  "  second  part,"  as  it  was  termed,  was  also  a 
new  and  important  proposition.  Up  to  this  time 
every  change  in  the  restrictions  had  to  originate  with 


398    GOVERNING  CON  PBRKNCB,  IN  METHODISM. 

the  Annual  Conferences,  and  by  them  be  sent  to  the 
General  Conference  for  concurrence.  This  new  prop- 
osition was  intended  to  permit  the  General  Conference 
to  take  the  initiative;  and  as  soon  as  "three-fourths 
of  all  the  members  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences 
who  shall  be  present  and  vote  on  such  recommenda- 
tion "  concur,  the  change  would  be  made. 

The  new  proposition  was  also  remarkable  in 
another  particular;  namely,  the  effort  to  make  it  ex- 
ceedingly difficult  to  change  the  First  Restrictive 
Rule,  which  refers  to  the  Articles  of  Religion,  or  doc- 
trines of  the  Church. 

The  resolution  directing  the  bishops  to  submit 
measures  to  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  appears 
to  have  been  dropped. 

Thus  the  General  Conference  of  1828  suggested  to 
the  several  Annual  Conferences  the  propriety  of  rec- 
ommending to  the  next  General  Conference  an  amend- 
ment to  the  proviso  in  regard  to  making  changes  in 
the  restrictions.  As  decided  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1808,  the  proposition  for  change  had  to  orig- 
inate in  the  Annual  Conferences.  The  proposed  amend- 
ment, however,  would  permit  it  to  originate  either  in 
the  General  or  Annual  Conferences.  The  act  of  1808 
required  the  agreement  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences; 
but  the  new  proposition  would  require  a  three-fourths 
vote  of  all  the  members  of  the  Annual  Conferences 
present  and  voting.  If  adopted,  the  Annual  Confer- 
ence would  cease  to  be  a  unit  of  power,  and  the  power 
would  be  placed  in  the  aggregate  membership  of  all 
the  Annual  Conferences. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION.  399 

The  proposed  change  in  the  provision  for  amend- 
ments to  the  constitution  was  submitted  to  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  after  the  adjournment  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1828,  and  the  matter  again 
came  up  in  the  General  Conference  of  1832. 

The  Journal  of  this  Conference  opens  with  the 
declaration  that  "at  a  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  began  and  held  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
on  Tuesday,  May  1,  1832,  the  Rev.  Joshua  Soule  and 
the  Rev.  Elijah  Hedding,  two  of  the  bishops  of  said 
Church,  being  present,  Bishop  Soule  opened  the 
Conference  by  reading  a  portion  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, singing,  and  prayer."1 

On  the  first  day  of  the  session  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1832  it  was,  on  motion  of  John 
Earley, 

"Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  five  members  be  ap- 
pointed, to  be  denominated  '  The  Committee  on  Privileges 
and  Elections,'  to  whom  shall  be  referred  all  matters  relating 
to  the  election  of  members  to  this  General  Conference,  to  ex- 
amine and  report  thereon."1 

On  Saturday,  May  12th,  the  above  committee  re- 
ported as  follows : 

"  The  Committee  on  Elections  beg  leave  to  report,  that 
whereas  there  has  not  been  anything  particularly  referred  to 
them,  that  they  have  barely  inquired  into  the  legality  of  the 
delegation  composing  this  General  Conference,  and  find  noth- 
ing incorrect.  Your  committee  find,  however,  that  some  of 
the  Annual  Conferences  have  been,  and  still  are,  in  the  habit 
of  choosing  supernumeraries,  or  delegates  in  reserve,  so  as  to 

1  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  p.  861.       *  Id.,  p.  364. 


400  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

have  their  proper  ratio;  but  as  usage  has  established  the 
principle,  we  do  not  deem  it  expedient  to  make  any  rule  on 
the  subject." 

"And,  on  motion,  the  Conference  concurred 
therein."  l 

On  the  7th  of  May  the  Committee  on  Itinerancy 
reported  the  result  of  the  vote  in  the  several  Annual 
Conferences  upon  the  Amendment  to  the  Consti- 
tution, submitted  by  the  previous  General  Confer- 
ence of  1828. 

The  Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  1832 
has  the  following  account : 

"  The  Committee  on  Itinerancy  reported  that,  on  exam- 
ination of  the  Journals  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  respect- 
ing the  alteration  of  the  restrictive  regulations,  as  recom- 
mended by  the  General  Conference  of  1828,  we  find  that  the 
subject  was  taken  up  by  the  New  York  Annual  Conference, 
and  concurred  in  by  seventy-two  votes  against  two — once 
resolutions  were  passed  inviting  the  several  Annual  Confer- 
ences to  concur  in  the  same — which  resolutions  have  passed 
all  the  Annual  Conferences  in  full  and  due  form,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Illinois,  where  we  find  some  want  in  the  for- 
mality ;  not  sufficient,  however,  in  the  judgment  of  your  com- 
mittee, to  alter  or  set  aside  the  principle.  And  we  have  the 
assurance  of  the  delegates  from  that  Conference  that  the  in- 
formality arose  from  the  want  of  information,  and  not  with 
any  intention  to  embarrass  the  true  design  of  the  said  resolu- 
tion. Your  committee  therefore  offer  the  following  resolution 
to  the  Conference,  viz. : 

"  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  Annual  Conferences  in 
General  Conference  assembled,  That  the  proviso  at  the  close 
of  the  article  numbered  six  of  the  Restrictive  Rules 
(see  Discipline,  chapter  i,  section  3,  page  21)  be  altered  so 
as  to  read:  'Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  con- 
current recommendation  of  three-fourths  of  all  the  mem- 


1  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  p.  380. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION.  401 

*»ers  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  who  shall  be.  present 
and  vote  on  such  recommendation,  then  a  majority  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  General  Conference  succeeding  shall  suffice  to 
alter  any  of  the  above  restrictions,  excepting  the  first  article ; 
and  also,  whenever  such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  have 
been  first  recommended  by  two-thirds  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence, so  soon  as  three-fourths  of  the  members  of  all  the  An- 
nual Conferences  shall  have  concurred  as  aforesaid,  such 
alteration  or  alterations  shall  take  effect.'  Signed,  L.  Clark, 
Chairman." l 

This  was  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Wednes- 
day, the  9th  of  May.2 

The  report  did  not  get  before  the  house  on  the 
9th,  but  was  considered  on  the  10th  of  May. 

The  Journal  informs  us  that  "  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Itinerancy,  presented  on  Monday 
morning  last  and  laid  on  the  table,  was  called  up  and 
read,  after  which  the  delegates  from  Illinois  gave  the 
following  assurance  in  writing,  viz.: 

"  We,  the  delegates  from  the  Illinois  Annual  Conference, 
do  hereby  certify  that  we  all  do  cordially  concur  in  the  above 
assurance.  SAMUEL  H.  THOMPSON, 

C.  W.  RUTER, 
JAMES  ARMSTRONG, 
ALLEN  WILEY, 
GEORGE  LOCKE,. 
WILLIAM  SHANK, 
THOMAS  S.  HITT." 

"The  Conference  then  proceeded  to  act  upon  the 
report,  and,  on  putting  the  question,  the  preamble 
was  adopted  unanimously.  The  first  resolution  (the 
one  in  question)  was  adopted  unanimously.' 


»3 


>  General  Conference  Journals.  Vol.  I,  pp.  377, 878.       » Id.,  p.  378. 
'  (jeuerul  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  pp.  382,  383. 


402    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM 

The  Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  18S2 
does  not  throw  any  light  upon  the  asserted  infor- 
mality in  the  case  of  the  Illinois  Conference.  If  it 
was  a  fact  that  the  Illinois  Conference  agreed  to  the 
change,  and  the  informality  did  not  neutralize  that 
agreement,  and  if  all  the  other  Annual  Conferences 
had  agreed  to  the  amendment,  as  the  committee  de- 
clared, then  it  was  regularly  before  the  General  Con- 
ference for  its  concurrence  by  a  two-thirds  vote.  If, 
however,  the  Illinois  Conference  had  not  agreed,  the 
proposition  had  not,  as  the  law  required,  received 
"the  joint  recommendation  of  all  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences," and  was  not  regularly  before  the  General 
Conference. 

But  we  must  keep  in  mind  the  fact  that  the  com- 
mittee pronounces  "  the  informality  not  sufficient  to 
alter  or  set  aside  the  principle,"  and  that  the  com- 
mittee of  the  General  Conference  and  the  delegates 
from  the  Illinois  Conference  declared  "  the  infor- 
mality rose  from  the  want  of  information,"  and  not 
from  "  any  intention  to  embarrass  the  true  design  of 
the  said  resolution." 

But  a  remarkable  fact  in  this  connection  is  the  dec- 
laration of  the  present  secretary  of  the  Illinois  Con- 
ference that  the  Journal  of  that  Conference  does  not 
show  that  the  Illinois  Conference  took  any  action 
whatsoever  upon  the  proposed  amendment  to  the 
constitution. 

In  order  to  ascertain  the  nature  of  the  infor- 
mality in  the  action  of  the  Illinois  Conference  upon 
this  amendment,  the  author  communicated  with  the 


CHANGES  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION.          403 

Rev.  Christian  Galeener,  the  secretary  of  the  above 
Conference,  and  requested  him  to  examine  the  Journal. 
The  secretary,  under  date  of  January  9,  1891,  an- 
swered as  follows:  "After  a  careful  scrutiny  of  the 
Journals  of  the  Illinois  Conference,  I  ain  convinced 
that  no  such  action  as  that  to  which  you  refer  was 
ever  journalized." 

The  records  of  the  Illinois  Conference  therefore 
afford  no  proof  that  the  Conference  ever  voted  on 
this  change  in  .the  constitution.  If  the  Illinois  Con- 
ference had  not  agreed  to  the  proposed  change,  then 
the  General  Conference  of  1832  had  no  right  to  adopt 
the  amendment  and  insert  the  new  provision  in  the 
constitution,  but  the  fact  that  there  is  no  record  of 
action  in  the  Illinois  Conference  is  not  conclusive 
proof  that  there  was  no  action,  for  the  secretary 
might  have  unintentionally  omitted  the  mention. 
This  may  be  considered  improbable,  and  yet  we  must 
give  weight  to  the  declaration  of  the  delegates  from 
the  Illinois  Conference  in  the  General  Conference  of 
1832,  and  to  the  statement  of  the  committee  which 
reported  upon  the  matter.  They  understood  the  facts 
better  than  we  can  at  this  distant  day.  If,  however, 
any  taint  of  illegality  existed  at  that  time,  it  may  be 
considered  as  having  passed  away,  as  there  is  no  record 
of  any  exception  having  been  taken  at  that  time, 
and  no  objection  has  been  filed  since  that  date,  a 
period  of  nearly  sixty  years. 

A  careful  comparison  will  show  that  the  proviso 
as  presented  in  the  committee's  report  is  not  pre- 
cisely the  same  as  the  one  passed  by  the  General  Con- 


404    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

ference  of  1828  as  a  recommendation  to  the  Annual 
Conferences.  The  proviso  in  the  committee's  report 
has  the  words  "any  of  the  above  restrictions;" 
whereas  that  agreed  to  by  the  General  Conference  of 
1828  had  "any  of  such  regulations."  In  the  second 
part  the  committee's  proviso  has  "  three-fourths  of 
the  members  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,"  but  the 
word  "all"  was  not  in  the  proviso  agreed  upon  in 
1828.  The  committee  has  "  shall  have  concurred  as 
aforesaid,  such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  take 
effect,"  while  the  General  Conference  of  1828  had 
"  shall  have  concurred,  as  aforesaid,  with  such  recom- 
mendation, such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  take 
effect." 

The  introduction  of  the  word  "all"  was  an  im- 
provement, as  it  gave  the  part  greater  clearness,  but 
the  substitution  of  the  words  "  any  of  the  above  re- 
strictions" for  "any  of  such  regulations,"  might  be 
supposed  by  some  to  limit  amendment  merely  to 
what  are  called  the  Restrictive  Rules,  while  the  other 
phrase  might  be  construed  as  intended  to  cover  all  the 
regulations  for  the  General  Conference  that  had  been 
decided  upon  by  the  General  Conference  of  1808. 
But  as  we  have  already  seen,  even  the  word  "  restric- 
tions" must  be  construed  as  covering  the  entire  in- 
strument. 

The  minor  changes  to  which  we  have  referred  are 
more  interesting  than  material  in  a  legal  sense  or  as 
matters  of  practical  value ;  for  the  important  question 
is  not  what  the  General  Conference  of  1828  sug- 
gested, but  upon  what  the  Annual  Conferences  voted, 


• 
CHANGES  IN  THB  CONSTITUTION.          405 

and  what  the  General  Conference  of  1832  concurred 
in;  and  we  must  conclude  that  the  form  as  reported 
by  the  committee,  and  adopted  unanimously  by  the 
General  Conference  of  1832,  was  the  form  voted  upon 
by  the  Annual  Conferences.  Yet  it  may  be  asked, 
who  presumed  to  alter  the  proposition  of  1828,  even 
in  the  slightest  particular  ? 

The  effect  of  the  vote  in  the  Annual  Conferences, 
and  the  concurrence  of  the  General  Conference,  was  to 
substitute  the  new  provision  for  amendments  to  the 
constitution  for  the  one  which  had  stood  since  1808,  a 
period  of  twenty-four  years. 

The  new  proviso,  as  in  the  report  of  the  above 
committee  and  in  the  Discipline  of  1832,  allowed  an 
amendment  to  be  passed  by  the  General  Conference 
and  then  concurred  in  by  the  members  of  the  Annual 
Conferences,  or  it  might  originate  in  an  Annual  Con- 
ference, be  passed  from  Conference  to  Conference, 
and  be  agreed  to  by  three-fourths  of  those  voting  in 
the  Annual  Conferences,  and  then  be  passed  by  a  two- 
thirds  majority  in  the  next  General  Conference. 
Either  course  might  be  pursued  in  amending  the  con- 
stitution. 

There  was,  however,  as  we  have  seen,  one  excep- 
tion, and  that  was  in  relation  to  the  first  Restrictive 
Eule. 

The  insertion  of  the  words  "excepting  the  first 
article,"  made  it  impossible  by  the  above  process  to 
change  the  Restrictive  Rule  in  regard  to  the  doctrines 
of  the  Church.  In  other  words,  it  was  impossible 
for  a  single  General  Conference,  even  with  the  agree- 


406    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

ment  of  the  ministry  in  the  Annual  Conferences  to 
amend  the  First  Restrictive  Rule.  Consequently  some 
have  inferred  that  there  is  no  way  of  changing  the 
Restrictive  Rule  as  to  standards  of  doctrine.  This, 
however,  is  a  mistake. 

By  the  constitution  of  1808,  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences and  the  next  succeeding  General  Conference 
could  amend  or  eliminate  the  First  Restrictive  Rule  or 
any  other  restriction.  By  the  provision  of  1832,  the 
first  rule  was  excepted  from  the  process  by  which 
the  other  regulations  could  be  amended ;  but  this  did 
not  make  it  absolutely  impossible  to  change  the  re- 
striction as  to  standards  of  doctrine.  The  inten- 
tion of  the  makers  of  the  new  provision  was  to  pro- 
tect the  doctrines  from  hasty  change  by  making  the 
process  of  amendment  more  lengthy  and  difficult  than 
in  the  case  of  the  other  restrictions. 

The  new  provision  for  amendment  created  a 
double  process.  First,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
amend  the  provision  for  amendment  by  striking  out 
the  words  "excepting  the  first  article."  This,  ac- 
cording to  the  constitution,  could  be  done  by  the 
action  of  the  ministers  in  the  Annual  Conferences 
and  the  concurrence  of  the  next  General  Conference, 
or  by  the  action  of  two-thirds  in  the  General  Con- 
ference and  the  concurrence  of  three-fourths  in  the 
Annual  Conferences.  If  this  was  agreed  to,  then 
the  first  restriction  would  no  longer  be  an  exception, 
and  it  could  be  amended  just  as  any  other  restriction. 

In  this  way  it  might  be  possible  to  change  the 
restriction  as  to  standards  of  doctrine  within  the 


CHANGES  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION.          407 

period  of  two  General  Conferences,  or  four  years. 
Thus  a  General  Conference  might  recommend  the 
striking  out  of  the  words  "excepting  the  first  article," 
and  the  ministers  in  the  Annual  Conferences  the  next 
year  might  concur.  This  being  done,  the  words 
would  be  eliminated.  Then  the  next  year  an  amend- 
ment to  the  first  Restrictive  Rule  might  be  passed 
around  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  agreed  to  by 
the  requisite  three-fourths  vote,  and  if  the  next 
General  Conference  concurred  by  a  two-thirds  vote, 
the  amendment  would  be  effected. 

The  new  provision,  as  already  seen,  permitted  the 
General  Conference  to  originate  and  vote  upon  an 
amendment  to  the  constitution  before  the  amendment 
was  passed  upon  by  the  ministry  in  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences. This  allowed  the  General  Conference  to 
originate  and  vote  upon  a  change  before  the  amend- 
ment was  submitted  to  the  members  of  the  Annual 
Conferences. 

The  Committee  on  Itinerancy  anticipated  this 
right,  and,  on  May  7th,  in  connection  with  the  report 
already  referred  to,  submitted  the  following : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  article  number  two  in  the  Restrictive 
Rules  be  so  altered  as  to  read,  '  They  shall  not  allow  of  more 
than  one  representative  for  every  fourteen  members  of  the 
Annual  Conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less  number  than  one  for 
every  thirty.'  Signed,  L.  Clark,  Chairman."  l 

This  was  called  the  second  resolution  of  the  com- 
mittee. It  was  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  the 
9th,  but  was  not  reached  until  the  10th  ol  May. 

1  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  p.  378. 


408  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

The  record  is  as  follows :  "  On  considering  the 
second  resolution,  it  was  moved  and  carried  that  it  be 
recommitted  to  the  committee,  with  instructions 
which  were  given  by  some  of  the  preachers  verbally, 
to  consider  and  report."  l 

The  next  day  the  committee  reported,  "  On  tak- 
ing the  question  upon  the  first  resolution,  a  division 
of  the  subject  was  called  for.  The  question  was 
then  taken  on  the  first  part  as  far  as  the  proviso,  and 
carried  unanimously." 

This  refers  to  the  ratio  of  representation  making 
it  not  more  than  one  for  fourteen,  and  not  less  than 
one  for  thirty.  The  Journal  does  not  give  the  "  pro- 
viso "  as  reported  by  the  committee,  but  merely  says : 
"  The  question  on  the  proviso  was  then  taken ;  yeas, 
one  hundred  and  twenty-two;  nays,  seventy-two;  con- 
sequently, as  there  was  not  a  majority  of  two-thirds 
in  the  affirmative,  the  question  on  the  proviso  was 
lost." 2  W.  Fisk  then  moved  to  amend  the  report  by 
inserting  the  following  resolution,  viz. : 

"Resolved,  That  in  any  case  where  there  is  a  fraction  of 
two-thirds  of  the  number  fixed  on,  according  to  the  rules  for 
the  ratio  of  delegation,  then,  and  in  every  such  case,  the  Cpn- 
ference  having  such  fraction  shall  be  entitled  to  a  delegate  for 
such  fraction;  provided,  however,  that  no  Conference  shall  be 
denied  the  privilege  of  one  delegate  for  such  fraction." 

"  It  was  moved  and  seconded  to  amend  this  reso- 
lution by  striking  out  the  word  '  one,'  and  inserting 
'  two/  Carried. 

"  When  the  question  on  the  resolution  as  amended 

'General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  p.  383.  *  Id.,  385. 


CHANGES  IN  THS  CONSTITUTION.          409 

was  called  for,  and  before  the  question  was  put, 
L.  Clark  moved  to  strike  out  that  part  of  the  reso- 
lution relating  to  the  fraction,  which  motion  was  sub- 
sequently withdrawn,  and  the  question  was  put  on  the 
resolution  as  amended,  and  carried  by  a  majority  of 
considerably  more  than  two-thirds.  The  second  reso- 
lution in  the  report  was  then  called  up.  The  ques- 
tion was  put  on  it  as  far  as  the  proviso,  and  carried." l 

On  May  11,  1832,  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Itinerancy  on  the  ratio  of  representation  was  con- 
sidered "  as  far  as  the  proviso,"  and  at  that  point  the 
Conference  adjourned.  On  Tuesday,  May  22d,  "  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  Itinerancy  was  called  up." 
"  S.  K.  Hodges  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  by 
which  a  fraction  of  two-thirds  should  be  entitled  to  a 
representative.  Lost." 3 

"The  second  resolution  in  the  report  was  then 
taken  up.  It  was  moved  to  amend  it  by  striking  out 
the  part  relating  to  fractions.  Lost.  The  question  on 
the  adoption  of  the  resolution  was  then  taken.  Car- 
ried—178  to  3."  s 

This  looks  a  little  confused ;  but  the  fact  is  that 
Wilbur  Fisk's  motion  was  an  amendment  to  the  re- 
port, and  the  resolution  as  amended  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  agreed  to.  Hence  the  motion  to  recon- 
sider related  to  the  amendment,  while  the  motion  to 
strike  out  referred  to  the  resolution  as  amended. 
Still,  it  seems  a  little  indefinite. 

"The  third  resolution  was  then  read  and  adopted. 

i  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  p.  385.       > Id.,  p.  40L 
*  Journal,  1832,  p.  402. 

27 


410    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"The  fourth  resolution  was  read  and  adopted. 
"  The  whole  report,  as  amended,  was  then  adopted 
by  a  unanimous"  vote."1 

The  report  as  adopted  is  as  follows: 

"  Resolved,  1.  That  this  General  Conference  recommend  to 
the  several  Annual  Conferences,  for  their  concurrence  and 
adoption,  as  provided  in  the  Sixth  Article  of  the  Restrictive 
Rules,  the  following  resolution  to  amend  the  Second  Article 
of  the  said  Restrictive  Rules : 

"  Resolved,  2.  That  the  Second  Article  of  the  Restrictive 
Rules  be  so  altered  as  to  read :  '  They  shall  not  allow  of  more 
than  one  representative  for  every  fourteen  members  of  the 
Annual  Conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less  number  than  one  for 
every  thirty ;  provided,  nevertheless,  that  when  there  shall  be, 
in  any  Annual  Conference,  a  fraction  of  two-thirds  of  the 
number  which' shall  be  fixed  for  the  ratio  of  representation,3 
such  Annual  Conference  shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional 
delegate  for  such  fraction ;  and  provided,  also,  that  no  Confer- 
ence shall  be  deprived  of  the  privilege  of  two  delegates. 

"  Resolved,  3.  That  the  secretary  furnish  each  of  the  bishops 
with  a  copy  of  those  resolutions,  and  they  are  hereby  respect- 
fully requested  to  present  the  same  to  their  several  Annual 
Conferences,  or  cause  them  to  be  presented,  at  their  next  ses- 
sion for  their  concurrence ;  and  when  the  bishops,  or  any  two 
of  the  bishops,  shall  have  ascertained  that  three-fourths  of  all 
the  members  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  voting  in  the 
case,  have  concurred  with  this  General  Conference,  they  shall 
certify  the  same,  and  cause  such  certificate  to  be  printed  in 
the  Minutes,  and  published  three  successive  weeks  in  the 
Christian  Advocate  and  Journal. 

"  Resolved,  4.  That  the  ratio  of  representation  for  the  next 
General  Conference  be  one  for  every  fourteen;  provided  the 
Annual  Conferences  concur  in  the  alteration  as  above  recom- 
mended by  this  Conference,  and  that  the  Discipline,  in  section 
three,  answer  one,  to  question  two,  on  page  nineteen,  shall 


i  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  p.  402. 

*  In  Flsk's  amendment  me  words  were,  "  ratio  of  delegation." 


CHANGES  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION.          411 

'hereupon  be  so  altered  as  to  read  :  'The  General  Conference 
shall  be  composed  of  one  member  for  every  fourteen  members 
of  eacb  Annual  Conference,'  etc."1 

These  amendments  were  agreed  to,  and  the  Disci- 
pline issued  in  1836  showed  the  changes  thus  made, 
in  harmony  with  the  second  resolution.  This  not 
only  changed  the  limits  of  the  sliding  scale,  but  also 
introduced  a  new  feature,  namely,  fractional  repre- 
sentation. 

On  Friday  afternoon,  May  25,  1832,  an  effort  was 
made  to  have  the  General  Conference  alone  change 
the  time  for  opening  the  General  Conference  from 
the  first  of  May  to  the  first  of  June.  This  is  the 
record : 

"  On  motion  of  D.  Ostrander,  seconded  by  W.  Winans : 

"  WHEREAS,  Great  inconveniences  have  been  experienced 
when  the  General  Conference  commences  its  session  on  the 
first  day  of  May,  on  account  of  many  of  the  delegates,  espe- 
cially from  the  North  and  East,  having  to  start  in  a  season 
when  the  winter  is  just  breaking  up  and  the  roads  (are)  very 
bad,  and  when  the  navigation  is  still  obstructed  by  ice ;  and 
whereas,  it  is  believed  that  it  is  perfectly  within  the  province 
of  this  Conference  to  vary  the  time  of  its  meeting ;  therefore, 

"Eesolved,  That  the  next  General  Conference  will  com- 
mence its  session  on  the  first  day  of  June,  instead  of  the  first 
day  of  May. 

"Laid  on  the  table.'" 

This  shows  that  some  believed  the  General  Con- 
ference had  power  to  change  anything  in  relation  to 
the  General  Conference,  with  the  exception  of  the  Re- 
strictive Rules;  but  from  the  fact  that  the  General  Con- 
ference laid  the  resolution  on  the  table,  and  did  not 


» General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  p.  402.  '  7c/.,  p.  413. 


412   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

take  it  up,  it  is  evident  that  the  Conference  itself  did 
not  believe  that  it  had  power  to  change  the  date  for 
opening  a  General  Conference  session,  or  to  make 
any  other  change  in  the  body  of  the  constitution  of 
1808,  without  the  concurrence  of  the  ministers  in  the 
Annual  Conferences.  • 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1836  an  effort  was 
made  to  further  reduce  the  ratio  of  representation. 
On  the  27th  of  May,  1836,  "  on  motion  of  J.  Early, 
the  resolution  of  P.  P.  Sandford  was  called  up,  and 
adopted  as  follows : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  ratio  of  delegation  for  the  next  Gen- 
eral Conference  be  fixed  at  one  delegate  for  twenty-one  mem- 
bers of  each  Annual  Conference."1 

This  the  Conference  had  the  power  to  do  under 
the  sliding  scale  agreed  to  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1832  and  the  members  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ference in  the  quadrennium  following  that  Confer- 
ence. So  this  change  went  at  once  into  the  Disci- 
pline of  1836. 

*  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  I,  p.  4M, 


CHAPTER  XV. 

CHANGES  IN  THE  CHAPTER  ON  THE  GENERAL 
CONFERENCE  FROM  1856  TO  1868. 

THE  bishops,  in  their  Address  to  the  General 
Conference  of  1856,  suggested  "the  propriety  of 
reducing  the  ratio  of  representation,"  and  said:  "  There 
is  already  constitutional  provision  for  such  reduction, 
so  as  to  authorize,  at  your  discretion,  not  less  than 
one  representative  for  every  thirty  members  of  An- 
nual Conferences."  l 

The  Committee  on  Revisals  recommended  "the 
insertion  of  the  words,  'twenty-seven,'  in  place 
of  'twenty-one'  in  Part  I,  chap,  iii,  sec.  2,  Ans.  1, 
of  the  Book  of  Discipline,"  and  the  General 
Conference  adopted  the  report,  thus  making  the 
ratio  of  representation  one  for  twenty-seven.2 
The  same  committee  recommended  "  the  alteration 
of  the  Second  Restrictive  Rule  so  as  to  insert 
'  one  for  every  forty-five  '  in  place  of  '  one  for  every 
thirty.'"8 

"  The  proposition  to  change  the  Second  Restrict- 
ive Rule  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  more  than  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  General  Conference 
in  its  favor."4 


i  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  1856,  III,  p.  193.  *  Id.,  p.  168. 

•Ibid.  «Jd,,p.l54. 

413 


414    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

Sherman  states  that  "the  General  Conference  of 
1856  referred  the  question  of  this  change  to  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  which  concurred ;"  '  but  it  is  a  little 
remarkable  that  the  bishops,  in  their  Address  to  the 
General  Conference  of  1860,  make  no  mention  of 
having  submitted  this,  though  they  refer  to  questions 
which  they  did  submit  to  the  Annual  Conferences, 
"  by  request  of  the  Conferences  in  which  they  origi- 
nated." 2  It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences did  vote  upon  it,  for  the  Committee  on  Itin- 
erancy, in  the  General  Conference  of  1860  made  the 
following  report: 

"  The  subject  of  the  vote  to  suspend  the  Second  Restrict- 
ive Kule  by  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  to  increase  the 
rate  of  representation  in  the  General  Conference,  was  referred 
to  us.  We  find  it  impossible  to  report,  as  many  of  the  Jour- 
nals could  not  be  examined,  the  delegations  having  sent  them 
home.  We  present  the  following  resolutions: 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  the  bishops  be  authorized  to  make  the 
report  so  that  the  alteration  may  be  made  in  the  forthcoming 
Discipline."  * 

This  appears  to  have  been  attended  to ;  for  the 
Discipline  of  1860  shows  the  change  in  the  Second 
Restrictive  Rule  so  that  it  read  "  nor  allow  a  less 
number  than  one  for  every  forty-five,"  instead  of 
"  one  for  every  thirty." 4 

In  their  Address  to  the  General  Conference  of 
1856  the  bishops  called  attention  to  the  desirability 


»  David  Sherman,  D.  D.,  History  of  the  Revisions  of  tbe  Discipline 
ol  the  MethodUt  Episcopal  Church,  1890,  3d  Ed.,  p.  145. 
'General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  IV,  I860,  p.  819. 
•  J<1,  pp.  294. 
«  Discipline,  1860,  p.  48. 


CHANGES  FROM  1856  TO  1868.  415 

of  changing   the    constitution   in   regard    to   calling 
extra  sessions.     They  said  : 

"The  rule  requiring  the  concurrent  advice  of  all  the  An- 
nual Conferences  to  authorize  the  bishops  to  call  an  extra 
session  of  the  General  Conference  we  think  unnecessarily  re- 
strictive. We  have  now  thirty-eight  Annual  Conferences,  and 
a  probability  of  more  ;  yet  any  one  of  them,  though  the  least 
of  all,  might  defeat  the  wishes  of  all  the  others  in  regard  to 
an  extra  session,  whatever  might  be  the  necessity  for  it.  We 
respectfully  suggest  that  any  state  of  affairs  which  would  sat- 
isfy three-fourths  or  even  two-thirds  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, and  the  bishops,  that  an  extra  session  of  the  General 
Conference  was  really  necessary,  should  be  deemed  a  sufficient 
reason  for  calling  it." 1 

On  this  suggestion  the  Committee  on  Revisals  re- 
ported as  follows: 

"  The  committee  having  duly  considered  that  part  of  the 
Bishops'  Address  which  relates  to  the  call  of  an  extra  session 
of  the  General  Conference,  recommend  the  insertion  of  the 
following  in  Part  I,  ch.  iii,  sec.  2,  in  place  of  our  present  pro- 
vision for  calling  an  extra  session  of  the  General  Conference : 

"  But  the  general  superintendents,  or  a  majority  of  them, 
by  or  with  the  advice  of  two-thirds  of  all  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, or,  if  there  be  no  general  superintendent,  two-thirds  of 
all  the  Annual  Conferences,  shall  have  power  to  call  an  extra 
session  of  the  General  Conference  at  any  time,  to  be  consti- 
tuted in  the  usual  way." 

This  was  adopted.1 

This  was  intended  to  change  the  constitution  so 
that  instead  of  requiring  the  consent  of  all  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  the  consent  of  two-thirds  would  be 
sufficient.  It  introduced  for  the  first  time  the  phrase 
u  extra  session  of  the  General  Conference,"  and 


i  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  Ill,  1856,  p.  193.         •  Id.,  p.  163. 


416   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

also  specified  that  it  was  "  to  be  constituted  in  the 
usual  way." 

We  have  no  evidence  that  this  was  voted  upon  by 
the  Annual  Conferences  prior  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1856,  or  subsequently  to  that  session,  but  the 
change  appears  in  the  Discipline  of  1856.  This 
appears  to  have  been  done  solely  by  the  General 
Conference,  and,  if  this  was  the  case,  it  was  un- 
constitutional ;  for  the  constitution  could  not  be 
changed  legally  excepting  by  the  concurrence  of 
the  constitution-making  powers,  which  were  the 
ministers  in  the  Annual  Conferences  together  with 
the  General  Conference. 

It  was,  therefore,  in  all  probability  illegally  in- 
serted, as  it  never  received  the  vote  of  the  Annual 
Conferences ;  but  as  it  has  stood  so  long,  and  has  been 
so  generally  accepted,  its  present  constitutionality 
will  scarcely  be  challenged  with  any  thought  of  hav- 
ing it  declared  invalid. 

The  most  important  change  proposed  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1856  was  an  amendment  to  the 
Third  Restrictive  Rule,  which  read  :  "  They  shall  not 
change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  government, 
so  as  to  do  away  episcopacy  or  destroy  the  plan  of 
our  itinerant  general  superintendency."  l 

Amendments  to  this  rule  had  been  proposed  in 
the  General  Conference  of  1852, 2  but  the  proposi- 
tions were  not  agreed  to.  The  object  of  these  pro- 


» Discipline,  1856,  p.  36. 

*  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  Ill,  1852,  pp.  66,  67,  76,  79,  94, 
96,  97. 


CHANGES  FROM  1856  TO  1868.  417 

posals  was  to  provide  supervision  for  the  foreign  mis- 
sion-field in  Africa. 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1856  the  question 
was  again  introduced  through  a  suggestion  in  the 
Episcopal  Address.  The  bishops,  in  their  Address, 
suggested  three  ways  of  meeting  the  difficulty:  First, 
to  send  a  bishop  to  organize  "  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  of  Africa ;"  second,  to  let  the  mission  in 
Liberia  organize  itself;  and,  third,  to  appoint  a  mis- 
sionary bishop  to  take  charge  of  the  foreign  work, 
while  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  retained  jurisdiction.1 

The  Committee  on  Missions  reported,  on  the  10th 
of  May,  in  favor  of  a  "  missionary  bishop,  who  shall 
reside  in  Liberia,  on  the  western  coast  of  Africa,  or 
in  its  vicinity,  and  have  episcopal  jurisdiction  in 
Africa  only."2  The  report  was  taken  up  on  the  16th 
of  May,  and  various  motions  bearing  upon  the  sub- 
ject were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Missions.3 
The  matter  was  again  considered  on  the  20th,  the 
24th,  and  the  31st  days  of  May.4  On  the  latter  day 
the  following  resolution  was  adopted : 

"  Resolved,  That  we  recommend  to  the  several  Annual 
Conferences  to  alter  the  Discipline,  paragraph  3,  section  2, 
Part  I,  by  adding  the  words,  after  the  word  '  superintendency ' 
in  the  fourth  line,  '  but  may  appoint  a  missionary  bishop  or 
superintendent  for  any  of  our  foreign  missions,  limiting  his 
episcopal  jurisdiction  to  the  same  respectively.'"6 

This  amendment  was  submitted  to  the  Annual 
Conferences,  and  received  from  the  ministers  the 

i  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  Ill,  1856,  p.  198.       » Id.,  p.  56. 
« Id.,  pp.  80, 81.       « Id.,  pp.  96, 115, 144, 148.       •  Id.,  pp.  144-146. 


418     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

requisite  vote,  so  that  the  bishops,  in  their  Address 
to  the  General  Conference  of  1860,  said:  "The  action 
of  the  last  General  Conference  in  relation  to  mis- 
sionary bishops  having  been  laid  before  the  several 
Annual  Conferences,  and  the  requisite  majority  or 
the  Annual  Conferences  having  concurred  with  the 
General  Conference  in  the  proposition  to  so  alter  the 
Discipline  as  to  allow  the  appointment  of  a  mission- 
ary bishop  or  superintendent  for  any  of  our  foreign 
missions,"1  they  had,  on  the  14th  of  October,  1858, 
set  apart  the  Rev.  Francis  Burns  as  the  first  mission- 
ary bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

The  amendment  having  been  duly  made,  should 
have  been  inserted  in  the  first  Discipline  issued  after 
the  concurrence  of  the  ministry  in  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences, but  in  some  way  it  did  not  appear  until 
1872. 2 

Then  the  amended  rule  read  as  follows:  "They 
shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our 
government,  so  as  to  do  away  episcopacy  or  destroy 
the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency ; 
but  may  appoint  a  missionary  bishop  or  superin- 
tendent for  any  of  our  foreign  missions,  limiting  his 
jurisdiction  to  the  same  respectively,"3 — and  so  it  has 
stood  until  the  present  time. 

In  this,  however,  there  is  one  error:  As  passed 
by  the  General  Conference  of  1856  it  contained  the 
word  "episcopal;"  and  read,  not  "his  jurisdiction," 

>  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  IV,  1860,  p.  313. 
•Sherman  says  It  appeared  in  1868;  but  it  does  not  appear  In  my 
Discipline  of  1868,  while  it  does  for  the  first  time  in  that  of  1872. 
»  Discipline  of  1872. 


CHANGES  FROM  1856  TO  1868.  419 

but  "his  episcopal  jurisdiction."  The  latter  form 
was  the  way  it  was  passed  in  the  Annual  Conferences; 
as,  for  example,  the  Journal  of  the  Philadelphia  An- 
nual Conference  for  April  1,  1857,  clearly  shows. 
Why  this  qualifying  word  was  omitted,  we  can  not 
say.  It  might  have  been  a  mere  accident,  or  the 
editor  who  inserted  it  might  have  stricken  out  the 
word  as  superfluous.  However  that  may  be,  and 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  never  has  been 
printed  in  the  Discipline,  yet  it  legally  stands  in  the 
law  as  adopted,  whether  printed  or  not,  and  ought 
to  be  inserted  in  the  next  edition. 

The  adoption  of  this  amendment  inaugurated  a 
new  policy  for  foreign  fields,  and  was  a  recognition 
of  the  fact  that  the  Conferences  outside  the  United 
States  did  not  have  the  same  status  as  those  in  this 
country. 

In  1860  the  General  Conference  changed  the  ratio 
of  representation  to  one  for  thirty  by  adopting  the 
following: 

11  Resolved,  That  the  ratio  for  the  representation  to  the 
next  General  Conference  be  one  representative  for  every  thirty 
members  of  the  Annual  Conference."  * 

On  May  24,  1864,  John  M.  Reid,  chairman  of  the 
Committtee  on  Itinerancy,  presented  a  report  con- 
taining various  items,  one  of  which  was  a  proposition 
for  "a  change  of  the  Restrictive  Rule  allowing  each 
Conference,  however  small,  at  least  two  delegates. v* 
On  May  26th  the  ayes  and  noes  were  ordered,  and  the 

>  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  IV,  1860,  p.  296. 
•Jtdt.,Vol.  V,  1884,  p.  208. 


420    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

report  was  adopted  by  144  ayes  against  59  noes,  11 
being  absent. l 

The  report  as  adopted  was  as  follows : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Second  Restrictive  Rule  be  amended 
by  striking  out  the  last  words  of  the  rule,  namely,  '  two  dele- 
gates,' and  inserting  in  their  place  the  following,  namely, 
1  one  delegate,'  so  that  it  may  read :  '  Provided,  also,  that  no 
Conference  shall  be  denied  the  privilege  of  one  delegate.' "  * 

This  was  followed  by  another  resolution,  namely : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  bishops  be  directed  to  present  the 
above  at  the  next  session  of  each  Annual  Conference  for -their 
concurrence ;  and,  when  all  the  Annual  Conferences  have 
acted  upon  it,  publicly  to  announce  the  result,  and  authorize 
the  Book  Agents  to  amend  the  published  copy  of  the  Dis- 
cipline accordingly."* 

In  their  Address  of  1868  the  bishops  do  not  men- 
tion the  action  of  the  ministers  in  the  Annual  Con- 
ference, but  the  change  appears  for  the  first  time  in 
the  Discipline  for  1868. 


1  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  V,  1864,  pp.  235, 236. 
•Id.,  p.  236. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


THE  greatest  change  in  the  chapter  on  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  was  brought  about  by  an  amend- 
ment admitting  laymen  into  that  body. 

The  question  of  lay  representation  had  been  be- 
fore the  Church  for  many  years.  "  The  first  dis- 
cussion of  this  subject  commenced  by  the  local 
preachers,  who  felt  that,  in  the  delegated  Confer- 
ence in  1812,  they  were  without  any  representa- 
tion. .  .  .  The  discussion  on  this  subject  spread 
more  fully  throughout  the  Church  between  1816  and 
1820.  .  .  Everywhere,  however,  the  discussion 
was  connected  with  the  abolition  of  the  episcopacy 
and  the  presiding  eldership,"1  and  the  agitation  cul- 
minated in  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Prot- 
estant Church  in  1828-1830. 

In  1840,  "certain  abolitionists"2  "petitioned  the 
General  Conference,  asking  for  lay  representation," 3 
but  the  General  Conference  adopted  the  report  of  a 
committee  declaring  "that  it  is  not  expedient  to 
change  the  form  of  our  Church  government  in  any  of 
the  matters  suggested."4 

» Bishop  Simpson's  Cyclopedia  of  Methodism,  Philadelphia,  1881, 
p.  630. 

•James  Porter,  D.  D.,  History  of  Methodism,  Cincinnati  and  New 
York,  1878,  p.  499. 

*  General  Con  Terence  Journals,  Vol.  II,  pp.  27, 32,  33.       « Id.,  p.  75. 

421 


422    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

In  1852  the  subject  was  referred  to  a  committee 
of  twenty-nine,  of  which  Dr.  Matthew  Simpson  was 
chairman.1  This  committee  reported  "  that  it  is 
inexpedient  so  to  alter  the  economy  of  our  Church 
as  to  introduce  lay  delegation  into  the  General  and 
Annual  Conferences,"2  and  the  report  was  adopted  by 
one  hundred  and  seventy-one  yeas  to  three  nays."  3 

In  their  Address  to  the  General  Conference  of 
1860,  the  bishops  referred  to  the  subject,  but  did  not 
recommend  the  adoption  of  lay  delegation.4  A  com- 
mittee reported  on  the  question,5  and  the  report  and 
various  substitutes  occupied  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
ference for  several  days,6  when  the  subject  was  re- 
committed to  a  committee  consisting  of  Davis  W. 
Clark,  James  Porter,  and  Sidney  Dean.  The  report 
of  this  committee  submitted  the  question  to  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  and  also  to  the  "  male  members  over 
twenty-one  years  of  age."  7  The  vote,  as  officially 
reported  by  the  bishops  to  the  General  Conference  of 
1864,  was  as  follows :  "  Of  the  ministers  there  were 
1,338  votes  for,  3,069  against;  of  the  male  members, 
28,884  for,  47,855  against."8 

The  General  Conference  of  1868  had  the  ques- 
tion under  consideration,9  and  a  committee  of  Con- 


» General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  26.        *  Id.,  pp.  147, 148. 

» Id.,  pp.  90.  91. 

«  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  IV,  1860,  pp.  319,  320. 

•  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  IV,  1860,  p.  248;  Majority  and 
Minority  Reports,  pp.  445,  447. 

«  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  IV,  1860,  pp.  278,  279-285. 
i  Id.,  pp.  289,  290. 

•  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  V,  1864,  p.  378. 

•General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  VI,  1868,  pp.  38,  69,  226,  227,  258. 
860,  262,  26S. 


CHANGES  PROM  1868  TO  1888.  423 

ference  was  appointed  "  with  a  view  to  prepare  a 
plan." l  This  committee  brought  in  a  report2  as 
follows : 

"  WHEREAS,  the  General  Conference  of  1860  expressed  its 
willingness  to  admit  lay  delegates  to  the  General  Conference 
whenever  the  people  should  desire  it ;  and  whereas,  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1864  concurred  in  that  action  ;  therefore, 

"  Resolved,  1 .  That  we  also  concur  in  the  same,  and  rec- 
ommend the  following  plan  to  the  godly  conuideration  of  oui 
ministers  and  people : 

"  Change  the  Discipline,  page  45,  Part  II,  chapter  i,  sec 
1,  so  that  it  shall  read  as  follows : 

"  Ques.  Who  shall  compose  the  General  Conference,  anu 
what  are  the  regulations  and  powers  belonging  to  it? 

"  Ans.  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of 
ministerial  and  lay  delegates.  The  ministerial  delegates  shall 
consist  of  one  member  for  every  thirty  (30)  members  of  each 
Annual  Conference,  to  be  appointed  either  by  seniority  or 
choice,  at  the  discretion  of  such  Annual  Conference,  yet  so 
that  such  representatives  shall  have  traveled  at  least  four  full 
calendar  years  from  the  time  that  they  were  received  on  trial 
by  an  Annual  Conference,  and  are  in  full  connection  at  the 
time  of  holding  the  Conference. 

"  The  lay  delegates  shall  consist  of  two  laymen  for  each 
Annual  Conference,  except  such  Conferences  as  have  but  one 
ministerial  delegate,  which  Conferences  shall  be  entitled  to  one 
lay  delegate  each. 

"The  lay  delegates  shall  be  chosen  by  an  Electoral  Con- 
ference of  laymen,  which  shall  assemble  for  the  purpose  on 
the  third  day  of  the  session  of  the  Annual  Conference,  at  the 
place  of  its  meeting,  at  its  session  immediately  preceding  the 
General  Conference. 

"  The  Electoral  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  one 
laymen  from  each  circuit  or  station  within  the  bounds  of  the 
Annual  Conference,  and,  on  assembling,  the  Electoral  Confer- 
ence shall  organize  by  electing  a  chairman  and  secretary  of 


'General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  VI,  1868,  pp.  264,  285. 
«/<Z.,pp.271-277. 


424    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

their  own  number;  such  layman  to  be  chosen  by  the  last 
Quarterly  Conference  preceding  the  time  of  its  assembling; 
provided  that  no  layman  shall  be  chosen  a  delegate  either  to  the 
Electoral  Conference  or  to  the  General  Conference  who  shall 
be  under  twenty-five  years  of  age,  or  who  shall  not  have  been 
a  member  of  the  Church  in  full  connection  for  the  five  con- 
secutive years  preceding  the  elections. 

"  Alter  Ans.  3  as  follows,  page  46 : 

"  Ans.  3.  At  all  times,  when  the  General  Conference  is  met, 
it  shall  take  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  ministerial  and 
lay  delegates  to  form  a  quorum  for  transacting  business. 

"  The  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  shall  sit  and  deliberate 
together  as  one  body,  but  they  shall  vote  separately  whenever 
such  separate  vote  shall  be  demanded  by  one  third  of  either 
order,  and  in  such  cases  the  concurrent  vote  of  both  orders 
shall  be  necessary  to  complete  an  action. 

"  Resolved,  2.  That  during  the  month  of  June,  1869,  on  any 
day  except  the  Sabbath,  the  time  to  be  determined  by  the  pas- 
tor and  the  two  laymen  appointed  by  the  Quarterly  Confer- 
ence as  hereinafter  provided,  there  shall  be  held  a  general 
election  in  the  several  places  of  worship  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  at  which  all  members  in  full  connection, 
and  not  less  than  twenty-one  years  of  age,  shall  be  invited  to 
vote  by  ballot :  '  For  Lay  Delegation '  or  '  Against  Lay  Dele- 
gation.' This  election  shall  be  held  under  th«  direction  of 
the  preacher  in  charge  and  two  laymen  appointed  for  the  pur- 
pose by  the  Quarterly  Conference,  who  shall  see  that  due  no- 
tice is  given  thereof  for  at  least  twenty  days  before  the  election, 
and  who  shall  superintend  all  the  details  of  the  election. 
They  shall  report  the  result  within  ten  days  after  the  election 
to  the  presiding  elder  of  the  district,  who  shall  report  the 
same  to  the  bishop  presiding  at  the  ensuing  Annual  Confer- 
ence, to  be  entered  upon  the  Conference  Journal. 

"  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  bishops  presiding  at  the  sev- 
eral Annual  Conferences,  at  their  first  sessions  after  the  above 
elections,  to  lay  before  those  bodies  the  following  proposed 
amendments  to  the  Second  Restrictive  Rule,  namely :  At  the 
end  of  line  three,  after  the  word  '  one,'  insert  the  word  '  min- 
isterial' (page  47  of  the  Discipline),  and  after  the  word  '  forty- 
five,'  line  seven,  same  page,  add  the  words  '  nor  more  than 


CHANGES  FROM  1868  TO  1888.  425 

two  lay  delegates  for  any  Annual  Conference;'  and  to  report 
the  result  to  the  next  General  Conference,  so  that,  as  amended, 
it  shall  read,  '  They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  minis- 
terial representative  for  every  fourteen  (14)  members  of  the 
Annual  Conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less  number  than  one  for 
every  forty  five  (45),  nor  more  than  two  lay  delegates  for  any 
Annual  Conference.' 

"Resolved,  3,  That  should  a  majority  of  votes  cast  by  the 
people  be  in  favor  of  lay  delegation,  and  should  three-fourths 
(I)  of  all  the  members  of  the  Annual  Conferences  present 
and  voting  thereon  vote  in  favor  of  the  above  proposed  change 
in  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  then  the  General  Confer- 
ence meeting  in  1872,  by  the  requisite  two-thirds  (§)  vote,  can 
complete  the  change,  and  lay  delegates  previously  ejected  may 
then  be  admitted."  * 

Under  this  act  "all  members  in  full  connection, 
and  not  less  than  twenty-one  years  of  age,"  were  in- 
vited to  vote  "  for  lay  delegation "  or  "  against  lay 
delegation."  "The  result  of  the  vote  of  the  mem- 
bership showed  over  100,000  in  favor  and  about  50,- 
000  against."2 

The  Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  1872 
does  not  give  the  vote  of  the  Church  members  on  this 
question,  and  we  have  not  the  exact  figures  at  hand ; 
but  the  above  statement  may  be  regarded  as  suf- 
ficiently accurate  for  all  practical  purposes.  It  is 
enough  to  know  that  a  majority  of  those  who  voted 
cast  their  ballots  in  favor  of  lay  delegation.  Under 
the  constitution  of  the  Church  this  vote  of  the  laity 
had  no  legal  value,  but  was  taken  as  an  expression  of 


i  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  VI,  1868,  pp.  276-277,  and  Ap- 
pendix to  Discipline  of  1868. 

-  Bishop  Simpson's  Cyclopaedia  of  Methodism,  Philadelphia,  1881, 
p.  531 


426     GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

opinion  upon  the  part  of  the  people.  Of  the  two,  Un- 
constitutional vote  was  that  of  the  ministry  in  tin- 
Annual  Conferences.  This  alone,  under  the  law  of  the 
Church,  had  any  force  whatever  in  determining  a 
change  in  the  constitution. 

On  the  first  day  of  the  session  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1872,  Bishop  Simpson,  in  behalf  of 
the  bishops,  reported  the  ministerial  vote  as  follows: 

"DEAR  BRETHREN, — The  last  General  Conference  devised 
a  plan  for  lay  delegation,  which  they  recommended  to  the 
godly  consideration  of  our  ministers  and  people.  In  connec- 
tion with  this  plan,  they  directed  the  bishops  to  lay  before 
the  several  Annual  Conferences  a  proposed  alteration  of  the 
Second  Restrictive  Rule,  and  to  report  the  result  of  the  vote 
thereon  to  this  General  Conference. 

"In  compliance  with  said  action,  we  laid  before  each  of 
the  Annual  Conferences  the  proposition  to  alter  the  Second 
Restrictive  Rule,  by  adding  thereto  the  word  'ministerial' 
after  the  word  '  one,'  and  after  the  word  '  forty-five '  the  words 
'nor  more  than  two  lay  delegates  for  any  Annual  Confer- 
ence.' Each  Conference  voted  on  said  proposition,  and  the 
aggregate  result  is  as  follows : 

"  For  the  proposed  change 4,915 

"  Against  the  proposed  change, 1,597 

"Blank, 4"1 

After  this  report  had  been  read,  the  following 
paper,  signed  by  J.  T.  Peck,  W.  L.  Harris,  R.  S. 
Foster,  G.  Haven,  and  T.  M.  Eddy,  was  presented : 

"WHEREAS,  The  General  Conference,  at  its  session  in 
Chicago  in  1868,  devised  a  plan  for  the  admission  of  lay  del- 
egates as  members  of  said  General  Conference,  and  recom- 
mended it  to  the  godly  consideration  of  our  ministers  and 
people ;  and 

"WHEREAS,  A  large  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Meth- 

i  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  VII,  1872,  p.  39. 


CHANGES  FROM  1868  TO  1888.  421 

odist  Episcopal  Church,  present  and  voting  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  said  plan,  voted  in  favor  of  lay  del- 
egai  ion ;  and 

"  WHEREAS,  Three-fourths  of  the  members  of  the  Annual 
Conferences  voted  in  favor  of  the  change  of  the  Restrictive 
Rules  proposed  in  said  plan,  for  the  purpose  of  making  it 
lawful  to  admit  to  the  General  Conference  lay  delegates  elected 
in  accordance  with  said  plan  ;  therefore, 

"Resolved,  1.  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  Annual  Con- 
ferences in  General  Conference  assembled,  That  the  change  in 
the  Restrictive  Rules  submitted  by  the  General  Conferences, 
and  adopted  by  the  required  three-fourths  of  the  members  ol 
the  Annual  Coherences  voting  thereon,  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  eaid  plan  in  the  words  following,  to- wit. 
(see  Plan),  be  and  hereby  is  adopted. 

"Resolved,  2.  That  said  plan  is  hereby  ratified  and  adopted 
and  declared  to  be  in  full  force ;  and  the  lay  delegates  elected 
under  it  are  hereby  invited  to  take  their  seats  as  members  ol 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
on  their  credentials  now  in  the  hands  of  the  secretary."  * 

At  this  stage  of  the  proceedings  a  substitute  was 
offered,  in  regard  to  which  the  record  is  as  follows : 

"On  motion  of  William  F.  Cowles,  the  Conference  ordered 
a  division  of  the  matter  pending,  so  that  the  vote  may  be  first 
taken  on  the  proposed  change  of  the  Second  Restrictive  Rule , 
whereupon  the  mover  accepted,  as  a  substitute  for  so  much  a& 
relates  to  this  subject,  the  following,  namely: 

"'Resolved,  That  this  General  Conference  does  hereby 
concur  with  the  Annual  Conferences  in  changing  the  Second 
Restrictive  Rule,  so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

"'They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  ministerial 
representative  for  every  fourteen  members  of  an  Annual  Con- 
ference, nor  allow  of  less  than  one  for  every  forty-five ;  nor  more 
than  two  lay  delegates  for  any  Annual  Conference.'  "* 

This,  consequently,  took  the  place  of  Dr.  Peck's 
first  resolution.  Upon  it  a  yea  and  nay  vote  was 

» General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  VII,  1872,  p.  40.       » Id.,  p.  41. 


428   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

ordered,  and  the  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of 
283  in  the  affirmative,  to  6  in  the  negative;  while  3 
were  recorded  as  absent  or  not  voting.1 

The  amendment  to  the  Second  Restrictive  Rule 
having  received  the  requisite  vote  in  the  Annual 
Conferences,  and  now  having  received  the  constitu- 
tional vote  in  the  General  Conference,  the  rule  was 
accordingly  amended  by  the  constitutional  process. 

There  was,  however,  a  slight  difference  between 
the  form  of  words  as  voted  upon  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1872  and  that  voted  upon  in  the  Annual 
Conferences.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  form  in  the 
resolution  of  W.  F.  Cowles,  as  adopted  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1872,  read,  "nor  allow  of  less 
than  one  for  every  forty-five,"  while  the  form  as  pre- 
sented in  1868  and  adopted  by  the  ministry  in  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  read,  "  nor  allow  of  a  less  number 
than  one  for  every  forty-five."  The  Discipline  of 
1872  has  the  latter  form  which  no  doubt  fairly  repre- 
sents the  intention,  though  they  were  not  the  exact 
words  passed  by  the  General  Conference  of  1872. 

On  the  same  day,  A.  J.  Kynett  offered  a  paper 
"as  a  substitute  for  the  second  resolution  of  the  paper 
presented  by  Jesse  T.  Peck."  Dr.  Kynett's  paper 
contained  the  following  resolutions: 

"  Resolved,  1.  That  the  said  plan,  recommended  as  above  by 
the  last  General  Conference,  and  published  in  the  Appendix 
to  the  Discipline,  page  333,  be  and  is  hereby  adopted,  to  be  in- 
serted in  the  Discipline  as  directed  ;  it  being,  however,'  under- 
stood that  the  General  Conference,  as  thus  constituted,  may 


1  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  VII,  1872,  p.  43. 


CHANGES  FROM  1868  TO  1888.  429 

at  any  time  alter  or  amend  the  same,  and  cause  such  alter- 
ation or  amendment  to  take  immediate  effect. 

"Resolved,  2.  That  the  credent! ils  of  lay  delegates  be  now 
received,  and  that  they  be  entitled  to  seats  in  this  General 
Conference."1 

This  was  a  claim  that  the  General  Conference 
alone  could  "at  any  time  alter  or  amend"  the  body 
of  the  constitution,  which  certainly  was  contrary  to 
all  constitution-making  principles,  and  contrary  to 
constitutional  ideas  as  taught  by  the  history  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  This  theory  would 
put  only  the  Restrictive  Rules  beyond  the  sole  con- 
trol of  the  General  Conference. 

"On  motion,  this  substitute  was  laid  on  the 
table,"2  and  the  General  Conference,  for  that  time, 
refused  to  take  this  dangerous  position. 

W.  F.  Cowles  offered  another  substitute,  which 
also  was  laid  on  the  table. 3  "  On  motion,  the  Con- 
ference ordered  a  division  of  the  question,  so  as  to 
vote  on  so  much  of  the  pending  resolution  as  ratifies 
and  adopts  the  '  plan '  of  lay  delegation." 

This  referred  to  the  first  part  of  Dr.  Peck's  sec- 
ond resolution.  "At  this  stage  of  the  proceedings 
the  previous  question  was  ordered,  and  the  vote  was 
taken  by  ayes  and  noes,"  and  the  result  showed  252 
ayes,  36  noes,  and  4  absent  or  not  voting;  so  the  first 
item  of  the  resolution  was  therefore  adopted,  in  words 
following,  viz. : 

"  Resolved,  That  said  plan  is  hereby  ratified  and  adopted."4 


i  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  VII,  1872,  p.  48.  *lbid. 

•  Id.,  pp.  43,  44.         « Id.,  pp.  44-46. 


430    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

The  Journal  then  states  that,  "by  this  action, 
Answer  1  to  the  question,  'Who  shall  compose  the 
General  Conference,  and  what  are  the  regulations 
and  powers  belonging  to  it?'  in  Part  II,  chap,  i, 
sec.  1,  of  the  Discipline,  was  so  changed  as  to  read"1 
as  in  "The  Plan"  suggested  in  1868. 

"Samuel  A.  W.  Jewett  submitted,  as  a  substitute 
for  the  remaining  portion  of  the  resolution,  a  motion 
that  the  roll  of  laymen  whose  certificates  of  elec- 
tion are  in  the  hands  of  the  secretary  be  now  called, 
and  that  those  persons  who  may  be  duly  accredited 
be  admitted  to  seats  in  this  General  Conference. 
The  vote  on  this  motion  was  taken  by  ayes  and  noes, 
with  the  following  result :"  Ayes,  288 ;  nay,  1 ;  ab- 
sent or  not  voting,  3,2 — William  H.  Perriue,  D.  D., 
of  Michigan,  being  the  only  one  who  voted  in  the 
negative.  Certificates  of  election  were  then  pre- 
sented by  the  laymen,  and  lay  delegation  was  incor- 
porated in  the  General  Conference. 

The  Journal  states  that,  by  the  vote  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  "  The  Plan  "  was  placed  in  the  chap- 
ter on  the  General  Conference;  but  as  to  the  consti- 
tutionality of  this,  many  grave  questions  have  been 
raised.  Some  hold  that  the  part  of  the  Discipline  which 
relates  to  the  composition  and  powers  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  is  a  single  instrument,  in  the  nature 
of  a  constitution,  and  that  to  change  any  part  that 
refers  to  the  composition  of  the  body,  it  is  necessary 
to  pursue  the  same  process  which  would  be  required 
in  amending  a  Restrictive  Rule. 

1  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  VII,  1872,  pp.  46.    *  Id.,  pp.  46-48. 


CHANGES  FROM  1868  TO  1888.  431 

That  this  is  a  sound  principle  must  be  admitted. 
If,  then,  "The  Plan"  was  not  voted  upon  by  the 
ministers  in  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  did  not  re- 
ceive the  requisite  three-fourths  vote,  its  incorpora- 
tion in  the  constitution  was  not  constitutional,  even 
if  it  had  received  a  unanimous  vote  in  the  General 
Conference. 

Some  maintain  that  neither  preachers  nor  people 
voted  upon  "The  Plan,"  but  upon  the  principle.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  members  voted  "  for  lay  dele- 
gation "  or  "against  lay  delegation;"  and  the  minis- 
ters in  the  Annual  Conferences  voted  only  on  the 
amendment  to  the  Restrictive  Rule.  This  amend- 
ment was  all  that  the  bishops  were  instructed  to 
submit  to  the  Annual  Conferences — was  all  that  was 
submitted  to  the  Annual  Conferences;  and  the  vote 
of  the  ministers  upon  that  is  all  the  bishops  pre- 
sented in  their  report. 

The  New  Hampshire  Conference,  in  April,  1870, 
presented  to  Bishop  Simpson,  who  was  in  the  chair, 
the  question  whether  its  vote  would  "  include  the 
adoption  of  the  plan  of  the  General  Conference,  or 
simply  the  amendment  of  the  Second  Restrictive 
Rule,"  and  he  decided  that  "the  vote  of  the  Confer- 
ence was  not  to  be  on  the  plan,  but  simply  and  alone 
on  the  alteration  of  the  Restrictive  Rule ;"  and 
"Bishop  Baker,  who  was  present,  was  announced  as 
concurring  in  this  decision."1 

"The  Methodist  of  April  16th,  and  Zion's  Herald 


i  Principles  of  Church  Government,  by  W.  H.  Perrine,  D.  D.,  edited 
by  J.  H  Pottt,  D.  D.,  New  York,  1887,  pp.  41,  42. 


432    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

of  April  14th,  same  year,  said:  'Bishop  Janes,  before 
the  New  York  Conference,  declared  that  the  vote  of 
the  Conference  did  not  touch  the  plan,  but  only  gave 
the  General  Conference  power  to  admit  laymen  to 
its  body.' " l 

The  Rev.  Dr.  J.  M.  Reid,  editor  of  the  North- 
western Christian  Advocate,  in  March  1872,  said:  "1. 
The  people  voted  only  on  the  principle,  and  not  on 
the  plan.  Their  ballots  were  '  for  lay  delegation/  and 
'against  lay  delegation.'  2.  The  ministers  did  not 
vote  on  the  plan,  but  solely  on  the  alteration  of  the 
Restrictive  Rule.  Nothing  else  was  ever  submitted 
to  the  Conferences  by  the  bishops.  They  were  not 
authorized  to  present  anything  else."2 

Dr.  Daniel  Curry,  editor  of  the  Christian  Advo- 
cate, said :  "  The  '  Plan '  was  simply  recommended  to 
the  consideration  of  ministers  and  people ;" 3  and  the 
Michigan  Annual  Conferences  put  on  record  the  fol- 
lowing :  "  (1)  The  vote  we  cast  is  solely  upon  the 
change  of  the  Restrictive  Rule.  (2)  We  do  not  in- 
dorse the  plan  proposed  by  the  General  Conference 
for  our  consideration."4 

It  would  seem  plain,  therefore,  that  the  Annual 
Conferences  did  not  vote  upon  the  plan. 

It  might  be  assumed  that  they  tacitly  agreed  to  the 
plan;  but  the  facts  already  cited  show  that  bishops 
declared  the  Conferences  were  not  to  vote  on  the  plan, 
and  that  at  least  some  of  the  Conferences  explicitly  de- 
clared they  did  not  vote  on  the  "  Plan;"  and,  therefore, 

» Perrlne's  Pri  nciples  of  Church  Government,  p.  42.         *  Id.,  p.  45. 
*ld.,  pp.  44,  45.  « Id.,  p.  51. 


CHANGES  FROM  1868  TO  1888.  433 

its  insertion  into  the  body  of  the  constitution  relating 
to  the  composition  and  organization  of  the  General 
Conference  was.  not  made  in  a  constitutional  manner. 

The  intention  of  a  voter  can  only  be  inferred 
from  the  vote  he  casts ;  and,  as  the  ministers  in  the 
Annual  Conferences  only  voted  for  the  amendment 
to  the  Restrictive  Rule,  we  must  infer  that  the 
amendment  to  the  rule  was  all  they  intended.  Cer- 
tainly no  amendment  can  be  made  to  a  constitution 
except  by  a  vote  on  the  exact  language  of  the  pro- 
posed change,  which  was  not  the  case  in  the  present 
instance. 

The  insertion  of  the  plan  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence was  not  a  "regulation,"  but  an  amendment  to 
the  body  of  the  constitution,  which  could  not  be 
done  by  the  General  Conference  alone ;  and  it  can 
not  be  maintained  that  the  amendment  to  the  Second 
Restrictive  Rule  necessarily  carried  with  it  the  details 
of  the  plan ;  for,  while  the  amendment  brought  the 
laity  into  the  General  Conference  in  a  legal  manner, 
it  did  not  necessarily  involve  the  details  of  the  plan, 
for  these  details  required  further  constitutional  amend- 
ment. 

That  a  great  and  representative  body  like  the 
General  Conference  made  the  changes  referred  to, 
does  not  prove  that  the  action  was  right,  or  that  the 
changes  were  made  in  a  proper  manner.  So  Judge 
Hare  remarks :  "  It  is  on  this  principle — that  the 
validity  of  a  command  depends,  not  on  the  dignity  or 
rank  of  the  person  from  whom  it  comes,  but  on 
whether  he  is  duly  authorized;  and  that  an  illegal 


434    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

order,  from  whatever  source,  is  void — that  the  bal- 
ance of  the  constitution  depends."  l 

The  proper  course  would  have  been,  to  have  sub- 
mitted the  entire  amendment,  including  the  "Plan," 
to  the  vote  of  the  members  of  the  Annual  Conferences. 

However,  as  the  "Plan"  has  stood  in  the  consti- 
tution for  almost  twenty  years,  it  is  not  likely  that 
any  serious  effort  will  be  made  to  question  its  present 
constitutionality,  no  matter  what  a  critical  judgment 
may  say  as  to  the  faultiness  of  the  process.  It  may 
be  claimed  that  an  objection  is  precluded  by  the  law 
of  limitations,  and  that  an  unconstitutional  change 
has  become  constitutional  by  lapse  of  time,  and  failure 
to  take  exception  at  the  proper  time.  This  might 
not  be  the  ruling  of  a  Supreme  Court  in  State  or 
Nation,  but  it  will  probably  be  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  public  opinion. 

The  act  of  the  body  of  the  ministry  in  the  An- 
nual Conferences  and  of  the  ministers  in  the  General 
Conference,  in  providing  for  lay  delegation,  has  been 
pronounced  the  most  remarkable  instance  of  the  vol- 
untary relinquishment  of  power  to  be  found  in  the 
history  of  the  world. 

The  clergy  were  under  no  compulsion  to  give  up 
the  authority  they  had  possessed  from  the  beginning, 
and  yet  they  voluntarily  admitted  the  laity  into  the 
supreme  legislative  body  of  the  Church  to  share  with 
them  the  vast  powers  of  the  General  Conference. 

The  "  Plan  "  had   "  one  member  for  every  thirty 

>J  I.  Clark  Hare,  LL.  D.,  American  Constitutional  Law,  Boston 
1889,  Vol.  I,  p.  29. 


CHANGES  FROM  1868  TO  1888.  485 

members  of  each  Annual  Conference"  which  was  the 
same  as  it  had  been  since  1860,  but  the  Discipline  of 
1872  read  "  one  member  for  every  forty-five  mem- 
bers." The  Committee  on  Itinerancy  recommended 
a  change  from  one  for  thirty  to  one  for  thirty-nine, 
but  Mr.  Hiram  Price  moved  to  amend  the  report  by 
striking  out  thirty-nine  and  inserting  forty-five,  so 
that  the  clause  would  read :  "  The  ministerial  dele- 
gates shall  consist  of  one  member  for  every  forty-five 
members  of  each  Annual  Conference," l  and  the 
amendment  was  adopted.  This  change  to  forty-five 
the  General  Conference  had  a  right  to  make  under 
the  Second  Restrictive  Rule  as  it  then  stood.  In 
1860  the  General  Conference  made  a  deliverance  on 
the  rights  of  transferred  preachers.2  This  for  some 
years  appeared  in  the  Appendix  to  the  Discipline 
until  the  General  Conference  of  1872  ordered  that 
this  decision  in  a  slightly  modified  form  should  be 
placed  as  a  foot-note  to  the  first  paragraph  of  the 
section  on  the  General  Conference,  as  follows:  "A 
transferred  preacher  shall  not  be  counted  twice  in 
the  same  year  as  the  basis  of  the  election  of  delegates 
to  the  General  Conference,  nor  vote  for  delegates  to 
the  General  Conference  in  any  Annual  Conference 
where  he  is  not  counted  as  a  part  of  the  basis  of 
representation,  nor  vote  twice  the  same  year  on  any 
constitutional  question."  3 

So  the  General  Conference  of  1868  passed  a  reso- 


i  Qenernl  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  VII,  1872,  p.  843. 
•  General  Conference  Journals,  1860,  p.  384. 
•General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  VII,  1872,  p.  438. 


436    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

lution  in  regard  to  certificates  of  election  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.1  This  also  stood  in  the  Appendix 
to  the  Discipline  until  the  General  Conference  of 
1872,  after  inserting  the  words  "and  Electoral,"  di- 
rected that  it  be  inserted  as  a  foot-note  to  Answer  1 
to  Question  1  in  the  same  section.  It  appeared,  how- 
ever, as  a  foot-note  to  the  fourth  paragraph,  as  fol- 
lows:  "The  secretaries  of  the  several  Annual  and 
Electoral  Conferences  shall  send  to  the  secretary  of 
the  last  General  Conference  a  certified  copy  of  the 
election  of  delegates  and  reserves  to  the  next  Gen- 
eral Conference  in  the  order  of  their  election,  as  soon 
after  the  election  as  practicable,  so  that  a  roll  of 
members  and  reserves  may  be  prepared  for  the  open- 
ing of  the  next  General  Conference."2  Though 
these  foot-notes  were  appended  to  the  constitution 
they  were  no  part  of  it,  but  were  merely  statutory 
enactments  of  the  General  Conference. 

Another  minor  change  that  ought  to  be  noted  is, 
that  whil6  the  "Plan,"  as  adopted  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1872,  had,  in  the  paragraph  relating  to 
"  the  Electoral  Conference,"  the  words  "  such  lay 
men  to  be  chosen  by  the  last  Quarterly  Conference 
preceding  the  time  of  its  assembling,"  the  Discipline 
of  1872  has  the  words  "preceding  the  time  of  the 
assembling  of  such  Electoral  Conference."  In  this 
there  is  no  change  of  sense,  but  rather  an  improve- 
ment in  the  style.  The  alteration,  however,  was  the 
work  of  the  editors.  As  to  their  right  to  change 

> General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  VI,  1868,  p.  210. 
•General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  VII,  1872,  pp.  439,  440. 


CHANGES  FROM  1868  TO  1888.  437 

even  a  word  in  the  constitution,  we  have  already  given 
an  adverse  opinion.  Dr.  Sherman,  who  is  usually  quite 
accurate,  is  slightly  in  error  in  indicating  that  the 
words  "such  laymen  to  be  chosen  by  the  last  Quarterly 
Conference  preceding  the  time  of  the  assembling  of 
such  Electoral  Conference," l  were  introduced  in 
1876. 

There  was  also  another  change;  namely,  the 
omission  of  the  question  at  the  head  of  the  section 
on  the  General  Conference :  "  Who  shall  compose  the 
General  Conference,  and  what  are  the  regulations  and 
powers  belonging  to  it?"  In  1792  the  question  was, 
"Who  shall  compose  the  General  Conference?"  but 
the  General  Conference  of  1808,  in  constructing  the 
constitution  for  the  delegated  General  Conference, 
added  the  words,  "  And  what  are  the  regulations  and 
powers  belonging  to  it?"  so  that  the  instrument 
drawn  up  by  the  assembled  ministry  in  1808  covered 
not  only  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference,  but 
also  the  regulations  as  to  composition,  time  of  meet- 
ing, presidency,  quorum,  etc.,  all  being  of  the  nature 
of  a  constitution.  This  change  was  made  probably 
by  the  editors,  for  we  have  not  found  any  specific 
authorization  by  the  General  Conference,  though  the 
editors  were  directed  "to  number  the  several  para- 
graphs of  the  Discipline  consecutively."2 

In  the  Discipline  of  1872  the  form  of  question 
and  answer  disappeared  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
sections ;  and  so  one  of  the  relics  of  Wesley's  method 

•  Sherman's  History  of  the  Discipline,  1890,  p.  144. 
•General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  VII,  1872,  p.  410. 


438    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

of  asking  questions  and  formulating  answers,  wine! 
became  the  law  for  his  followers,  was  eliminated,  am. 
has  never  since  reappeared. 

In  the  Discipline  of  1884  several  minor  changv> 
appear  in  the  wording  of  the  chapter  on  the  General 
Conference.  Thus,  at  the  beginning  of  each  Re- 
strictive Rule,  after  the  first,  instead  of  the  form, 
"They  shall  not,"  we  find  the  phrase,  "The  General 
Conference  shall  not."  This  was  a  better  phrasing, 
and  brought  the  form  of  all  the  Restrictive  Rules  in 
harmony  with  that  of  the  First,  which  always  had 
read  "  The  General  Conference  shall  not." 

In  the  part  which  said,  "  The  ministerial  and  lay 
delegates  shall  sit  and  deliberate  together  as  one 
body,"  the  word  "sit"  was  stricken  out,  and  the 
word  "  vote  "  inserted,  and  the  order  changed,  so  that 
it  read  "  shall  deliberate  and  vote  together." 

The  Discipline  of  1884  shows  a  substitution  of 
"nor"  for  "or"  in  the  First  Restrictive  Rule,  alter- 
ing the  form  from  "  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or 
change "  to  "  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  nor  change  our 
Articles  of  Religion,  nor  establish  any  new  standards." 
In  the  Discipline  of  1808  the  form  was  "or"  and 
the  change  of  "or"  to  "nor"  in  1884  was  the  work 
of  the  editor  or  of  the  printer. 

The  phrase  "the  Charter  Fund,"  in  the  Sixth 
Restrictive  Rule,  was  changed  to  "the  Chartered 
Fund,"  which  makes  no  variation  in  the  sense,  while 
it  gives  the  legal  title,  as  stated  elsewhere  in  the 
Discipline,  the  full  title,  according  to  the  charter 
granted  by  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  being: 


CHANGES  FROM  1868  TO  1888.  439 

•''The  Chartered  Fund  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America." 

Another  change  appeared  in  the  part  relating  to 
extra  sessions.  Since  1856  it  had  read,  "Or,  if  there 
he  no  general  superintendent,  two-thirds  of  all  the 
Annual  Conferences  shall  have  power  to  call,"  etc. 
The  editor  of  the  Discipline  of  1884  changed  "or" 
to  "but,"  inserted  "shall"  and  "then,"  began  a  new 
sentence,  and  made  it  read :  "  But  if  there  shall  be 
no  general  superintendent,  then  two-thirds,"  etc.,  and 
this  part  was  taken  out  of  the  place  it  had  occupied 
and  brought  down  to  the  foot  of  the  paragraph  and 
the  words  "  such  extra  session  "  were  added. 

A  slight  change  was  made  in  another  particular. 
In  1808  the  phrase  used  in  this  connection  was  "with 
or  by  the  advice."  In  1856  the  order  was  changed  to 
read  "by  or  with;"  but  in  1884  the  editor  made  it 
road  "  by  and  with." 

In  1856  this  part  read  as  follows:  "But  the  gen- 
eral superintendents,  or  a  majority  of  them,  by  or 
with  the  advice  of  two-thirds  of  all  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences, or,  if  there  be  no  general  superintendent, 
two-thirds  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  shall  have 
power  to  call  an  extra  session  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence at  any  time,  to  be  constituted  in  the  usual  way." 

With  the  editorial  changes  of  1884,  it  was  made 
to  read:  "But  the  general  superintendents,  or  a 
majority  of  them,  by  and  with  the  advice  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  shall  have  power 
to  call  an  extra  session  of  the  General  Conference  at 
any  time,  to  be  constituted  in  the  usual  way.  But  if 


440    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

there  shall  be  no  general  superintendent,  then  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  shall  have  power 
to  call  such  extra  session." 

In  1884  the  Discipline  shows  a  slight  modifica- 
tion in  the  first  paragraph  on  the  General  Conference. 
The  part  had  read:  "The  ministerial  delegates  shall 
consist  of  one  member  for  every  forty-five  members 
of  each  Annual  Conference."  In  the  Discipline  of 
1884  "member"  was  stricken  out,  and  "delegate" 
inserted,  so  that  it  read,  "  one  delegate  for  every 
forty-five  members." 

All  these  changes  are  doubtless  editorial.  Many 
of  them  are  improvements;  but  the  historian,  to  be 
accurate,  must  declare  that  changes  which  are  the  re- 
sult of  editorial  supervision,  have  not  the  force  of 
enactments  by  the  General  Conference,  or  of  amend- 
ments by  the  constitution-making  powers — namely, 
the  body  of  the  ministry  in  the  Annual  Conferences 
and  the  delegates  in  the  General  Conference  acting 
concurrently. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  of  the  unconstitu- 
tional insertions  in  the  section  on  the  General  Con- 
ference was  made  in  the  Discipline  of  1856.  It  read 
as  follows: 

"  The  General  Conference  may  try  appeals  from  members 
of  Annual  Conferences  who  may  have  been  censured,  sus- 
pended, expelled,  or  located  without  their  consent,  by  a  com- 
mittee embracing  not  less  than  fifteen  of  its  members,  nor 
more  than  one  member  from  each  delegation,  who,  in  the 
presence  of  a  bishop  presiding,  and  one  or  more  of  the  secre- 
taries of  the  Conference  keeping  a  faithful  record  of  all  the 
proceedings  had,  shall  have  full  power  to  hear  and  deteriniin- 


CHANGES  FROM  1868  TO  1888.  441 

the  case,  subject  to  the  rules  and  regulations  which  govern 
the  said  Conference  in  such  proceedings,  and  the  records  made 
and  the  papers  submitted  in  such  trials  shall  be  presented  to 
the  Conference,  and  be  filed  and  preserved  with  the  papers  of 
that  body." ' 

This  appeared  in  the  body  of  the  constitution  as 
Paragraph  or  Answer  5,  just  after  the  paragraph  on 
the  Presidency  of  the  General  Conference  and  imme- 
diately preceding  the  recital  of  the  powers  of  that 
body. 

The  General  Conference  had  no  right  to  insert 
the  paragraph  on  Appeals  in  this  place;  for,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  while  it  has  "  full  powers  to  make 
rules  and  regulations"  under  certain  restrictions,  it 
has  no  power  of  itself  to  change  or  amend  the  con- 
stitution. 

In  this  case,  however,  the  fault  was  not  with  the 
General  Conference;  for  the  General  Conference 
ordered  that  the  "paragraph  be  appended  to  section 
2,  of  Part  I,  of  the  Discipline,  entitled  '  Of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.'"  2 

This  action  made  it  follow  the  constitution;  but 
the  editor  inserted  it  in  the  body  of  the  instrument, 
which,  of  course,  he  had  no  right  to  do.  The  most 
singular  circumstance  connected  with  this  insertion 
is  the  fact  that  no  one  appears  to  have  noticed  the 
error,  and  that  it  was  permitted  to  stand  in  the  con- 
stitution for  eight  years,  or,  in  other  words,  in  that 
part  of  the  Discipline  of  1856  and  1860,  and  was  not 
removed  until  1864,  when  it  was  taken  out  of  the 

>  Discipline  1856,  p.  35. 

•  General  Conference  Journals,  Vol.  Ill,  1856,  p.  173. 
29 


442    GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

constitution,  where  it  never  had  a  right  to  be,  and 
was  placed  in  a  new  chapter,  entitled,  "Trial  of  Ap- 
peals." ' 

In  1860,  a  paragraph  relating  to  the  matter  of 
raising  funds  to  defray  the  expenses  of  delegates  to 
the  General  Conference,  was  appended  to  the  section 
on  the  General  Conference',  but  it  was  not  inserted  in 
the  constitution,  and  in  1864  it  was  taken  from  the 
end  of  the  section. 

After  all  the  changes  of  eighty  years,  the  follow- 
ing is  the  section  on  the  General  Conference  as  it 
stands  in  the  Discipline  of  1888: 

"THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE. 

"H  E5.  The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of 
ministerial  and  lay  delegates.  The  ministerial  delegates 
shall  consist  of  one  delegate  for  every  forty-five  members  of 
each  Annual  Conference,  to  be  appointed  either  by  seniority 
or  choice,  at  the  discretion  of  such  Annual  Conference,  yet 
so  that  such  representatives  shall  have  traveled  at  least  four 
full  calendar  years  from  the  time  that  they  were  received  on 
trial  by  an  Annual  Conference,  and  are  in  full  connection  at 
the  time  of  holding  the  Conference.* 

"  If  56.  The  lay  delegates  shall  consist  of  two  laymen  for 
each  Annual  Conference,  except  such  Conferences  as  have  but 
one  ministerial  delegate,  which  Conferences  shall  each  be  en- 
titled to  one  lay  delegate. 

"  t  57.  The  lay  delegates  shall  be  chosen  by  an  Electoral 
Conference  of  laymen,  which  shall  assemble  for  the  purpose 


i  Discipline  1864,  Chapter  II,  Section  1, 1 2. 

*A  transferred  preacher  shall  not  be  counted  twice  In  the  snmo 
year  in  the  basis  of  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence, nor  vote  for  delegates  to  the  General  Conference  in  any  Annual 
Conference  where  he  is  not  counted  as  a  part  of  the  basis  of  represen- 
tation, nor  rote  twice  the  same  year  on  any  constitutional  questiwm. 


CHANGES  FROM  1868  TO  1888.  443 

on  the  third  day  of  the  session  of  the  Annual  Conference,  at 
.the  place  of  its  meeting,  at  its  session  immediately  preceding 
that  of  the  General  Conference. 

"f  58.  The  Electoral  Conference  shall  be  composed  of 
one  layman  from  each  circuit  or  station  within  the  bounds  of 
the  Annual  Conference,  such  laymen  to  be  chosen  by  the  last 
Quarterly  Conference  preceding  the  time  of  the  assembling  of 
such  Electoral  Conference ;  and  on  assembling,  the  Electoral 
Conference  shall  organize  by  electing  a  chairman  and  secre- 
tary of  its  own  number:  Provided,  that  no  layman  shall  be 
chosen  a  delegate  either  to  the  Electoral  C  nference  or  to  the 
General  Conference  who  shall  be  under  twenty-five  years  of 
age,  or  who  shall  not  have  been  a  member  of  the  Church  in 
full  connection  for  the  five  consecutive  years  preceding  the 
elections.* 

"1  59.  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first 
day  of  May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1812,  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  and  thenceforward  on  the  first  day  of  May  once  in  four 
years  perpetually,  in  such  place  or  places  as  shall  be  fixed  on 
by  the  General  Con  Terence  from  time  to  time ;  but  the  gen- 
eral superintendents,  or  a  majority  of  them,  by  and  with  the 
advice  of  two-thirds  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  shall  have 
power  to  call  an  extra  session  of  the  General  Conference  at 
any  time,  to  be  constituted  in  the  usual  way.  But  if  there 
shall  be  no  general  superintendent,  then  two-thirds  of  all  the 
Annual  Conferences  shall  have  power  to  call  such  extra  session. 

"  U  6O.  At  all  times  when  the  General  Conference  is  met 
it  shall  take  two  thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  ministerial 
and  lay  delegates  to  form  a  quorum  for  transacting  business. 

"H61.  The  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  shall  deliberate 
and  vote  together  as  one  body  ;  but  they  shall  vote  separately 
whenever  such  separate  vote  shall  be  demanded  by  one-third 
of  either  order ;  and  in  such  cases  the  concurrent  vote  of  both 
orders  shall  be  necessary  to  complete  an  action. 


*  The  secretaries  of  the  several  Annual  and  Electoral  Conferences 
•hall  send  to  the  secretary  of  the  last  General  Conference  a  certified 
copy  of  the  election  of  delt-gutes  and  reserves  to  the  next  General  Con- 
Terence,  In  the  order  of  their  election,  as  soon  after  the  election  as 
practicable,  so  that  a  roll  of  members  and  reserves  may  be  prepared 
for  tbe  opening  of  the  next  General  Conference. 


444   GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM. 

"f62.  One  of  the  general  superintendents  shall  preside 
in  the  General  Conference;  but  in  case  no  general  superin- 
tendent be  present,  the  General  Conference  shall  choose  a 
president  pro  tempore. 

"H  63.  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  power  to 
make  Rules  and  Regulations  for  our  Church  under  the  follow- 
ing limitations  and  restrictions,  namely : 

"§  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  nor 
change  our  Articles  of  Religion,  nor  establish  any  new  stand- 
ards or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to  our  present  existing  and 
established  standards  of  doctrine. 

"  §  2.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  allow  of  more 
than  one  ministerial  representative  for  every  fourteen  mem- 
bers of  an  Annual  Conference ;  nor  of  a  less  number  than  one 
for  every  forty-five;  nor  of  more  than  two  lay  delegates  for 
an  Annual  Conference:  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  when 
there  shall  be  in  any  Annual  Conference  a  fraction  of  two- 
thirds  the  number  which  shall  be  fixed  for  the  ratio  of  repre- 
sentation, such  Annual  Conference  shall  be  entitled  to  an  ad- 
ditional delegate  for  such  fraction  ;  and  provided,  also,  that  no 
Conference  shall  be  denied  the  privilege  of  one  ministerial 
and  of  one  lay  delegate. 

"  §  3.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  change  nor  alter 
any  part  or  rule  of  our  government  so  as  to  do  away  episco- 
pacy, nor  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintend- 
ency ;  but  may  appoint  a  missionary  bishop  or  superintendent 
for  any  of  our  foreign  missions,  limiting  his  jurisdiction  to  the 
same  respectively. 

"  g  4.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke  nor  change 
the  General  Rules  of  the  United  Societies. 

"§5.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  do  away  the  priv- 
ileges of  our  ministers  or  preachers  of  trial  by  a  committee, 
and  of  an  appeal ;  neither  shall  they  do  away  the  privileges  of 
our  members  of  trial  before  the  society  or  by  a  committee,  and 
of  an  appeal. 

"2  6.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  appropriate  the 
produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  nor  of  the  Chartered  Fund,  to 
any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  traveling,  supernu- 
merary, superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives, 
widows,  and  children. 


CHANGES  FROM  1868  TO  1888.  445 

"  f  64.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  concurrent 
recommendation  of  thrve-fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the 
several  Annual  Conferences,  who  shall  be  present  and  vote  on 
such  recommendation,  then  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the 
General  Conference  succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  the 
above  Restrictions,  excepting  the  first  article ;  and  also,  when- 
ever such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  have  been  first  recom- 
mended by  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference,  so  soon  as 
three-fourths  of  the  members  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences 
shall  have  concurred  as  aforesaid,  such  alteration  or  altera- 
tions shall  take  effect." 


APPENDIX. 


CHANGES  IN  THF  SECTION  ON  THE  GENERAL  CON- 
FERENCE  FROM  1792  TO  1888. 

THE  following  is  a  condensed  showing  of  various  changes 
made  from  time  to  time  in  this  section.  It  is  taken  mainly 
from  "  The  History  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,"  by  the  Rev.  David  Sherman,  D.  D. ;  but  we 
have  made  modifications  where  there  were  manifest  errors, 
or  where  greater  clearness  could  be  secured. 

The  figures  on  the  left  hand  show  the  time  when  the  part 
was  inserted,  those  on  the  right  show  when  the  paragraphs 
were  taken  out,  and  the  other  dates  show  when  smaller 
changes  were  made : 

THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE. 

1792.]  Quest.  Who  shall  compose  the  General  [1872. 
Conference,  [in.,  1808,  and  what  are  the  regulations  and  powers 
belonging  to  it]  ? 

Ans.  All  the  Traveling  Preachers  who  shall  be  in  [18O8. 
full  connection  at  the  time  of  holding  the  Conference  [in.,  1800, 
and  have  traveled  four  years],  [in.,  1804,  from  the  time  that 
they  were  received  on  trial  by  an  Annual  Conference]. 

1808.]  H  55.  I.*  The  General  Conference  shall  be 
composed  [in.,  1872,  of  Ministerial  and  Lay  Delegates. 
The  Ministerial  Delegates  shall  consist]  of  one  ["  member," 
changed  1884,  to  "delegate"]  for  every  [five;  1818,  seven;  1836, 


*The  paragraph  numbers  are  those  of  the  Discipline  of  1888.    The 
Roman  numerals  appeared  only  In  the  Discipline  of  1872.       T.  B.  N. 

447 


448  APPENDIX. 

twenty-one;  1856,  twenty-seven ;  1860,  thirty ;  1872,  forty-five]  mem- 
bers of  each  Annual  Conference,  to  be  appointed  either 
by  seniority  or  choice,  at  the  discretion  of  such  Annual 
Conference,  yet  so  that  such  representatives  shall  have 
traveled  at  least  four  full  calendar  years  from  the  time 
that  they  were  received  on  trial  by  an  Annual  Confer- 
ence, and  are  in  full  connection  at  the  time  of  holding 
the  Conference.* 

1872.]  ^[  56.  The  Lay  Delegates  shall  consist  of  two 
Laymen  for  each  Annual  Conference,  except  such  Con- 
ferences as  have  but  one  Ministerial  Delegate,  which 
Conferences  shall  be  entitled  to  one  Lay  Delegate  each. 

^[57.  The  Lay  Delegates  shall  be  chosen  by  an 
Electoral  Conference  of  Laymen,  which  shall  assemble 
for  the  purpose  on  the  third  day  of  the  session  of  the 
Annual  Conference,  at  the  place  of  its  meeting,  at  its 
session  immediately  preceding  the  General  Conference. 

^[  58.  The  Electoral  Conference  shall  be  composed 
of  one  Layman  from  each  Circuit  or  Station  within  the 
bounds  of  the  Annual  Conference ;  and,  on  assembling, 
the  Electoral  Conference  shall  organize  by  electing  a 
Chairman  and  Secretary  of  their  own  number,  such 
Laymen  to  be  chosen  by  the  last  Quarterly  Conference 
preceding  the  time  of  the  assembling  of  such  Electoral 
Conference;  Provided,  that  no  Layman  shall  be  chosen 
a  Delegate  either  to  the  Electoral  Conference  or  to 
the  General  Conference  who  shall  be  under  twenty- 
five  years  of  age,  or  who  shall  not  have  been  a  member 


1872.]  *  A  transferred  Preacher  shall  not  be  counted  twice  In  the 
same  year  as  the  basis  of  the  election  of  Delegates  to  the  General  Con- 
ference, nor  yote  for  Delegates  to  the  Qeneral  Conference  in  any  An- 
nual Conference  where  he  is  not  counted  as  a  part  of  the  basis  of  rep- 
resentation, nor  vote  twice  the  came  year  on  any  constitutional 
question. 


APPENDIX.  449 

of  the  Church  in  full  connection  for  the  five  consecutive 
years  preceding  the  elections.* 

1792.]  Quest.  3.  When  and  where  shall  the  next  [1796. 
General  Conference  be  held  ? 

Ant.  On  the  first  day  of  November,  in  the  year  1796,  in 
the  town  of  Baltimore. 

1808.]  ^[59.  II.  The  General  Conference  shall 
meet  on  the  first  day  of  May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1812,  in  the  City  of  New  York,  and  henceforward  on  the 
first  day  of  May  once  in  four  years  perpetually,  in  such 
place  or  places  as  shall  be  fixed  on  by  the  General  Con- 
ference from  time  to  time;  but  the  General  Superin- 
tendents [in.,  1866,  or  a  majority  of  them],  ["with  or  by," 
changed  1856,  to  "  by  or  with,"  1884,  to  "by  and  With"]  the  ad- 
vice  of  [in.,  1856,  two-thirds  of]  all  the  Annual  Conferences, 
(or,  if  there  be  no  General  Superintendent,  [in.,  1856,  two- 
thirds  of]  all  the  Annual  Conferences  (carried  to  foot  of  tin 

1884,  and  changed  to  read  as  below))  [respectively,  om.f  1856]  shall 

have  power  to  call  [" a," changed,  1866, to  "an;"  in.,  1856,  extra 
session  of  the]  General  Conference,  I"  if  they  judge  it  neces- 
sary/' om.,  1856]  at  any  time  [tn.,  1856,  to  be  constituted  in  the 

USUal  Way.]  [In.,  1884"  or  "changed  to  "  But  "]  if  there  [in.,  1884. 

shall]  be  no  General  Superintendent,  [in.,  1884,  then]  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  shall  have  power  to 
call  [in.,  1884.  Such  extra  session.] l 

^[  60.  HE.  At  all  times  when  the  General  Confer- 
ence is  met  it  shall  take  two-thirds  of  ["  the  representative* 


•The  Secretaries  of  the  several  Annual  and  Electoral  Conferences 
shall  send  to  the  Secretary  of  the  last  General  Conference  a  certified 
copy  of  the  election  of  Delegates  and  Reserves  to  the  next  General  Con- 
ference, (in  the  order  <>f  their  election,  as  soon  after  the  election  as 
practicable,  so  that  a  roll  of  Members  and  Reserves  may  be  prepared 
for  tha  opening  of  the  next  Qeneral  Conference. 

>  We  have  changed  Dr.  Sherman's  arrangement  of  this  paragraph 
considerably .— N. 


450  APPENDIX. 

of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  to  make,"  changed,  1872,  to  "  the 
whole  number  of  Ministerial  and  Lay  Delegates  to  form  "] 
a  quorum  for  transacting  business. 

1872.]  I]"  61.  IV.  The  Ministerial  and  Lay  Dele- 
gates shall  ["  sit,"  1884,  to  "  vote  "]  and  deliberate  [issi,  changed 
to  deliberate  and  vote]  together  as  one  body,  but  they 
shall  vote  separately  whenever  such  separate  vote  shall 
be  demanded  by  one-third  of  either  order ;  and  in  such 
cases  the  concurrent  vote  of  both  orders  shall  be  neces- 
sary to  complete  an  action. 

1808.]  Tf  62.  V.  One  of  the  General  Superintend- 
ents shall  preside  in  the  General  Conference  ;  but  in  case 
no  General  Superintendent  be  present,  the  General  Con- 
ference shall  choose  a  president  pro  tern. 

^[  63.  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full 
powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church, 
under  the  following  limitations  and  restrictions,  namely: 

I.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter, 
[««or"  1884, to  "  nor"]  change  our  Articles  of  Religion,  nor 
establish  any  new  standards  or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary 
to    our  present    existing    and   established    standards   of 
doctrine. 

II.  ["They,"  1884, to  "The  General  Conference"]  shall 
not  allow  of  more  than  one  [in.,  1872,  Ministerial]  Rep- 
resentative for  every  [five;  1836,  fourteen]  members  of 
the   Annual  Conference  [in.,  1872,  nor  more  than  two 
Lay  Delegates  for  any  Annual  Conference];    nor  allow 
of  a  less  number  than  one  for  every  ["  seven ;  1836,  thirty ; 
i860,  forty-five"]. 

1836.]  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  when  there  shall 
be  in  any  Annual  Conference  a  fraction  of  two-thirds  the 
number  which  shall  be  fixed  for  the  ratio  of  represen- 
tation, such  Annual  Conference  shall  be  entitled  to  an 


APPENDIX.  451 

additional  delegate  for  such  fraction ;  and  provided,  also, 
that  no  Conference  shall  be  denied  the  privilege  of 
["  two  Delegates,"  changed,  1864,  to  "one  Delegate"]. 

1808.]  HI.  ["They,"  1884, to  "The  General  Confer- 
ence "]  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our 
government,  so  as  to  do  away  Episcopacy,  or  destroy  the 
plan  of  our  itinerant  General  Superintendency  [in., 
1856,*  but  may  appoint  a  Missionary  Bishop  or  Super- 
intendent for  any  of  our  foreign  missions,  limiting  his 
jurisdiction  to  the  same  respectively]. 

IV.  ["They, "1884, to  "The  General  Conference"]  shall 
not  revoke  or  change  the  General  Rules  of  the  United 
Societies. 

V.  ["They,"  1884, to  "The  General  Conference "]  shall 
not  do  away  the  privileges  of  cur  Ministers  or  Preachers, 
of  trial   by   a   Committee,   and   of  an   appeal ;    neither 
shall  they  do   away  the  privileges   of  our   members,  of 
trial  before  the  Society,  or  by  a  Committee,  and  of  an 
appeal. 

VI.  ["They,"  1884,  to  "  The  General  Conference "]  shall 
not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  ["or," 
1828, to  "nor"]  of  the   [Charter,  changed,  1884,  to  Chartered] 
Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the 
traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and   worn-out 
preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children. 

^[  64.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  ["joint," 
changed,  1832,  to  "concurrent"]  recommendation  of  ["all  the," 
changed,  1832,  to  "  three-fourths  of  the  members  of  the 
several"]  Annual  Conferences  [in.,  1832,  who  shall  be 
present  and  vote  on  such  recommendation],  then  a 


*  By  oversight  of  the  Editor,  this  clause,  though  authorized  by  the 
General  Conference  of  1856,  was  not  inserted  In  the  Discipline  until 
1872. 


452  APPENDIX. 

majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference  sue 
ceeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  the  above  restriction* 
[in.,  1832,  excepting  the  first  article ;  and  also,  whenever 
such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  have  been  first  recom- 
mended by  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference,  so  soon 
as  three-fourths  of  the  members  of  all  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences shall  have  concurred  as  aforesaid,  such  alter- 
ation or  alterations  shall  take  effect].  * 


i Sherman,  History  of  the  Discipline,  pp.  143-148. 


QLIje  (Snb. 


"  A  book  that  will  live."     -r    "  It  will  be  a  standard  work." 


THE  EVOLUTION  OF  EPISCOPRCY 


ORGflNIC  METHODISM. 

By  KEV.  THOMAS  B.  NEELY,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  of  Philadelphia, 

AUTHOR  OF  "  YOUNG  WORKERS  IN  THE  CHURCH,"  "  CHURCH 
I/VCEUM,"  "  PARLIAMENTARY  PRACTICE,"  ETC. 

12mo.    Pp.  448.    $1.25. 

PUBLISHED  BY 

CRANSTON  &  STOWE,  Cincinnati.    HUNT  &  EATON,  New  York. 


This  book  is  a  presentation  of  the  fundamental  principles 
of  Church  government,  and  at  the  same  time  is  a  history  of 
Methodism  in  a  new  form. 


PRESS  NOTICES. 


Dr.  T.  B.  Neely  is  probably  the  ablest  advocate  of  Methodism  of 
recent  days. — The  Church  Unto* 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Neely  has  said  the  very  best  that  can  be  said  for  the 
Methodist  system  of  Church  government.  In  his  book,  The  Evolution  of 
Kpiscopacy,  he  defines  the  theory  or  doctrine  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copate.— The  Christian  Union. 

It  presents  a  clear  and  interesting  account  of  the  dawn  of  Methodism 
under  John  and  Charles  Wesley,  and  its  introduction  into  the  United 
States.  All  its  points  of  difference  from  the  Established  Church  are 
stated  and  justified  with  fairness.— Literary  News. 

This  work  presents  not  only  the  nature  of  the  episcopate  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  also  "  the  evolution  of  the  later  epis- 
copacy from  the  simple  forms  of  the  early  Christian  Church,  the  modifi- 
cation of  views  in  the  Church  of  England  after  the  Protestant  Reforma- 
tion, the  change  of  Wesley's  views  in  regard  to  Church  government,  the 
gradual  evolution  of  organic  Methodism,  the  growth  of  Methodism  in 
America,  the  validity  of  Methodist  ordinations,  and  the  propriety  and 
legitimacy  of  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as 
compared  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  and  other  Churches.— Christian 
Advocate. 

This  volume  has  been  received  with  general  favor  by  the  Methodist 
press.  .  .  .  The  chapter  on  Mr.  Wesley's  relation  to  the  episcopate  of 
American  Methodism  is  full  of  interest,  and  some  points  are  made  which 
we  do  not  remember  to  have  seen  in  just  the  same  form  before.— Michi- 
gan Christian  Advocate. 


THE    EVOliUTIOri    OF     EPISCOPACY. 


This  is  a  timely,  popular,  and  valuable  book  on  a  distinctive 
feature  of  Methodist  polity.  It  should  be  in  the  hands  of  all  our 
preachers,  and  it  is  worthy  of  an  extensive  circulation  throughout  the 
Church.  .  .  .  Dr.  Neely  is  well  qualified  to  write  such  a  book.— Buffa.o 
Christian  Advocate. 

It  is  in  its  details  a  book  for  the  Methodist  denomination,  relating  to 
matters  which  concern  the  order  and  the  ministry  of  those  CHurches 
exclusively.  Indirectly  it  has  a  wider  interest  for  all  who  love  simplicity 
in  the  Church  and  hate  the  insidious  advance  of  clericalism.  .  .  .  The 
question  is  one  of  great  importance  for  its  bearing  on  the  freedom  and 
usefulness  of  the  Methodist  body,  and  is  handled  in  a  particularly 
effective  and  thorough  manner  by  Dr.  Neely  in  this  volume. —  The 
Independent. 

Dr.  Neely's  reputation  as  a  writer  on  matters  pertaining  to  Methodist 
history  and  economy  will  not  suffer  from  this  publication.  It  is  a 
valuable  contribution  to  pur  denominational  literature,  and  well  states 
and  defends  our  historic  doctrine  concerning  episcopacy.  It  is  a 
repertory  of  facts  worth  knowing,  and  their  knowledge  will  go  far  to 
check  any  tendency  among  us  to  undue  claims  either  by  or  for  our  epis- 
copacy. —Baltimore  Methodist. 

This  is  a  critical,  able,  and  timely  book.  Dr.  Neely  has  obtained 
much  credit  for  himself  as  an  author,  and  conferred  a  great  benefit  upon 
the  Church  in  writing  this  volume.  It  is  the  ablest  and  most  important 
book  that  we  have  seen  on  this  much-debated  topic.  It  should  be  read 
by  all  our  clergy;  it  will  be  studied  by  many  of  our  thoughtful  laymen. 
There  are  twelve  chapters,  taking  the  stretch  of  the  whole  question  from 
"The  Bishopric  in  the  Early  Christian  Church,"  to  the  action  of  "  the 
General  Conference  of  1884."  We  are  personally  grateful  to  Dr.  Neely  for 
his  elaborate  and  profound  volume.  It  is  much  needed.— Zion's  Herald, 
Boston. 

The  title  of  this  work  is  attractive,  and  one  finds  the  interest  sus- 
tained as  he  reads.  It  is  a  well-chosen  title,  for  no  other  so  well  expresses 
just  the  purpose  of  the  author.  We  can  not  improve  upon  the  author's 
statement  of  this  purpose.  .  .  .  The  author  faithfully  carries  out  his 
object.  The  work  shows  care,  research,  and  ability,  and  will  be 
welcomed  by  ecclesiastical  students  in  and  out  of  the  Methodist 
Church.  .  .  .  All  will  acknowledge  that  the  author  is  fair  and  candid 
from  his  point  of  view.  There  are  full  and  carefully  selected  citations 
that  make  the  work  valuable,  and  quite  indispensable  to  the  students  of 
denominations.— Public  Opinion,  jSSo. 

A  clear  analytical  explanation  of  the  government,  and  especially  of 
the  episcopacy,  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  .  .  .  The  author 
has  at  his  command  a  rich  store  of  General  Conference  acts,  and  quota- 
tions from  the  first  writers  of  the  Church,  of  which  he  makes  careful  and 
especially  efficient  use.  In  view  of  the  brilliant  illumination  which  he 
sheds  upon  the  circumstance  no  one  can  longer  doubt  whether  the  High 
or  Low  Church  theory  has  now  the  victory  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  .  .  .  The  author  explains  all  with  the  greatest  clearness.  He 
has  made  a  valuable  contribution  to  the  ecclesiastico-legal  literature  of 
his  Church.  His  book  deserves  the  close  study  of  preachers,  particularly 
of  such  Churches  as  are  governed  by  bishops  or  p_resbyters. —  Viertel- 
jahrsschrift  fur  Wissenschaftliche  und  Practische  Theologie,  Cleveland, 
Ohio,  1889. 

This  work  bears  the  marks  of  careful  study,  protracted  reflection,  and 
clear  perception.  One  of  the  most  important  qualifications  in  the  prep- 
aration of  a  work  on  Church  Government  is  the  ability  to  comprehend 
the  subject,  so  as  to  distribute  the  matter  luminously  and  to  avoid  unnec- 
essary repetition.  This  work  makes  obvious  the  possession,  to  a  consid- 
erable degree,  by  the  author,  of  this  quality.  While  of  special  interest  to 
Methodists  it  is  full  of  valuable  information  for  members  of  other 
denominations.  It  would  be  difficult  to  mention  any  branch  of  the 
subject  which  has  not  been  treated  with  more  or  lees  fullness,  and  the 


EVOLtUTIOfl   OF   HPISCOPACV. 


more  important  divisions  exhaustively.  .  .  .  The  serious  question  of 
the  relation  of  Wesley  to  the  American  Episcopate  is  elaborately  unfolded. 
Next  comes  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Kpiscopal  Church.  This 
chapter  is  made  peculiarly  interesting  by  the  full  treatment  of  the  views 
of  Dr.  (afterward  Bishop)  White,  and  the  history  of  the  formation  of  the 
I'rotestant  Episcopal  Church. — Christian  Advocate. 

Dr.  Neely  is  one  of  the  foremost  men  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  any  production  from  his  pen  is  entitled  to  careful  considera- 
tion. In  the  present  instance  we  think  he  has  succeeded  in  giving  the 
Church  a  clear,  consistent,  and  logical  presentation  of  a  subject  about 
which  there  are  confused,  not  to  say  nebulous,  impressions  in  some 
quarters.  .  .  .  Our  episcopacy,  as  Dr.  Neely  shows  in  his  luminous 
and  unanswerable  argument,  is  simply  a  presbyterial  episcopacy  in  which 
the  order  of  presbyters  is  the  permanent  body,  and  the  cpiscopos  is  the 
superintendent  chosen  to  fulfill  certain  prescribed  functions.  Nothing 
is  done  by  a  bishop  that  may  not  be  done  by  a  presbyter  in  certain  con- 
tingencies. Even  the  right  to  ordain  is  inherent  in  the  presbytery,  and 
it  is  delegated  for  good  and  sufficient  reasons  to  the  bishop.  It  may  be 
exercised  by  the  elders  alone  in  the  event  of  the  death  of  all  the  bishops 
in  the  Church.— Methodist  jjuarterly  Re-view  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  1880. 

If  there, are  any  tendencies  to  prelacy  in  our  Church  this  volume  mny 
operate  as  a  prophylactic;  if  the  prelatic  spi.it  he  actually  working 
among  either  our  ministers  or  people,  this  book  may  be  regarded  as  an 
antidote.  If  there  be  no  such  tendencies,  then  it  may  serve  the  important 
purpose  of  confirming  the  conviction  of  our  Church  that  its  the.uy  of 
episcopacy,  as  being  not  an  order,  but  an  office,  has  its  justification  in 
the  simple  practice  of  the  primitive  Church,  in  the  ecclesiastical  theories 
of  the  great  Protestant  Reformers,  in  the  practice  of  our  founder,  and  in 
the  teachings  of  the  men  who  framed  our  Church  constitution.  Dr. 
Neely  has  made  this  theory  a  demonstrated  fact  by  citations  gathered 
from  many  standard  authorities,  carefully  collated,  logically  arranged, 
and  judiciously  commented  upon.  These  citations,  with  theirconnecting 
historical  statements,  are  gathered  from  many  and  varied  sources.  His 
discussion  of  the  episcopate  in  our  Church  is  full  and  satisfactory.  It 
covers  the  substance  of  our  Church  history  on  episcopal  questions,  and 
contains  much  valuable  matter  not  within  the  easy  reach  of  most  readers. 
It  is  therefore  valuable  both  for  reading  and  reference.  To  those  seeking 
to  understand  our  ecclesiasticism  it  is  an  especially  desirable  book. — Dr. 
Wise,  Editor  pro  tern,  of  Methodist  Review. 

It  is  a  volume  not  written  for  a  particular  occasion  ;  it  will  have  a 
permanent  place  in  our  Methodist  literature.  It  is  an  investigation  of  a 
portion  of  our  history  that  does  not  yet  appear  to  be  perfectly  under- 
stood, and  Dr.  Neely's  painstaking  study  will  prove  of  great  service  to 
many  persons  who  have  not  had  access  to  documents  somewhat  rare,  or 
time  to  study  the  subject.  The  first  half  or  more  of  the  volume,  the  first 
four  chapters—"  The  Bishopric  in  the  Early  Christian  Church,"  "  Episco- 
pacy in  the  Church  of  England,"  "  Wesley's  Views  of  Episcopacy,  prdi- 
nation  and  Church  C.overmnent,"  and  "  Wesley's  Relation  to  the  Episco- 
pate of  American  Methodism,"  are  in  the  best  style;  the  matter  is  not  so 
well  presented  elsewhere,  so  far  as  we  know.  The  chapter  on  the 
"Organization  of  the  Methodist  -Kpiscopal  Church  "  illustrates  broadly 
the  period;  especially  the  ecclesiastical  discussions  of  the  times.  And 
the  following  history,  and  the  discussions  over  the  episcopal  office,  are 
well  summarized  ana  give  a  clear  and  comprehensive  view  of  the  subject. 
Dr.  Neely's  position,  that  the  bishopric  is  an  office,  not  an  order  of  the 
ministry,  is  that  of  the  Methodist  Kpiscopal  Church.  We  commend  the 
volume  to  our  laymen.  They  and  their  children  should  master  it.-. 
contents. — Central  Christian  Advocate,  St.  Louis. 

A  restatement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  respecting  episcopacy  is 
opportune,  both  to  enlighten  the  uninformed,  to  check  the  aggrcs-ivr 
spirit  of  those  in  sympathy  with  an  ei-elc-iastical  hierarchy,  ami  to  si-tile 
once  for  all  the  position  of  the  Church  before  the  world  on  a  subject  that 


HVOliUTIOfi   Op   EPISCOPACY. 


really  troubles  ->ur  neighbors  more  than  ourselves.  Having  accom- 
plished these  ends  in  his  book,  Dr.  Neely  maybe  regarded  as  an  exponent 
t>{  the  Methodist  stand-point  of  episcopal  history  and  prerogative,  ami 
until  his  facts  are  invalidated  his  conclusions  must  pass  in  all  Church 
circles  as  final  and  authoritative.  .  .  .  With  historic  data  at  hand,  Dr. 
Neely,  after  considering  the  simple  forms  of  authority  in  the  early 
Christian  Church,  exhibits  the  modification  of  episcopal  function  in  the 
Church  of  England  after  the  Protestant  Reformation,  following  it  with 
Mr.  Wesley's  variant  view  of  that  function,  which  passed  over  into 
American  Methodism  as  its  presiding  element  and  as  the  standard  of 
episcopal  character  and  life.  In  this  evolution  the  author  makes  free 
use  of  authorities  in  the  Church  of  England— as  the  Rev.  Edwin  Hatch, 
Dean  Stanley,  Archdeacon  Farrar — and  obtains  a  stronger  affidavit  from 
Bishop  Onderdonk,  of  the  diocese  of  Pennsylvania,  who,  on  the  questions 
at  issue,  are  as  affirmative  as  either  Mr.  Wesley  or  Francis  Asbury. 
Historically  Dr.  Neely's  argument  is  unanswerable,  and,  as  the  key  to 
the  controversy  is  history,  it  should  end  with  the  summoned  testimony 
of  history.  While  the  book  openly  but  incidentally  exposes  the  sepul- 
chral character  of  the  dogma  of  apostolical  succession,  its  primary  and 
ultimate  purpose  is  the  vindication  of  Methodist  episcopacy,  both  as  to 
its  history  and  character,  the  author  maintaining  with  characteristic 
vigor  that  the  third-order  dogma  is  foreign  to  all  Methodist  teaching  and 
usage,  and  to  be  reprobated  as  the  offspring  of  the  hierarchical  mind. 
Standing  on  this  impregnable  conclusion,  he  readily  establishes  the 
validity  of  Methodist  ordination  and  the  propriety  and  legitimacy  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  .  .  .  For  the  present  we  rest  the  case 
with  the  author's  masterful  exposition  of  it.— Methodist  Review, 
York,  1889. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


Series  9482 


^B 

m 

Mmffi 


Wfi 

m 


1 


IHB^v-" 

University  of  ( 
Southern  Rej 
Library  Fa< 


